Fairness doctrine
This letter has not been edited.
This is another great example of the political telephone game. This has been a favorite topic on right wing talk radio and the message is that the meanie Democrats want the government to ban right-wing commentators.
Although the letter-writer doesn't refer to it directly, this whole controversy got started when a Republican Senator said he shared an elevator in June with Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer, and that they were complaining about right-wing talk radio and that there should be a "legislative fix." Since then, the Senator (James Inhofe) has sort of backed off that story, saying that the overheard elevator conversation actually took place three years ago and the statement may have been more along the lines of "there has to be a fix to this." That account just screams credibility.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706240004
Jeff,
Agreed.... I have not heard of many Democrats, or progressives for that matter, clamoring for the Fairness Doctrine. At best it's a smokescreen to take the heat and attention off of Bush's repeat scandals, at worst it's one of those issues the G.O.P. will bring up to rile the NASCAR Republicans in '08 to get them to the voting booth (after all, you can bring up gay marriage amendments only so many times).
It does destroy the Republican talking point, however, that the media is all liberal controlled, if the Republicans are freaking out over the Fairness Doctrine. Guess it's not all liberal media, huh?
Posted by Dan on July 5, 2007 03:56 PMThe Fairness Doctrine was based on the idea that the public air ways belong to, guess who?, the public. So those using those air ways had an obligation to be sensitive to the needs of the public. It was assumed that the public was better served by having opposing views aired rather than by hearing only one side of an issue.
The issue does indeed have two sides. Those who opposed the Fairness Doctrine claimed that it had a chilling effect in that broadcasters would be reluctant to air a controversial program and be subjected to the burden of making sure that "the other side" also received some consideration. It is also contended the the doctrine violates free speech rights, although when the Supreme Court was faced with the doctrine it did not so hold.
The doctrine came into being in 1949 as an FCC rule, was enshrined into law in 1959 and was repealed i 1987. When Sinclair Broadcasting attempted to force its sixty-two television stations to preempt other programming in order to show a strongly anti-Kerry program before the 2004 presidential election, without allowing any opportunity for the other side to be presented, interest in the Fairness Doctrine again became an issue.
Some information about the Fairness Doctrine:
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials."
"In 1959 Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine into law, rewriting Chapter 315(a) to read: “A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.”
"It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969."
"A decade later the United States Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s constitutionality in Red Lion Broadcast-ing Co. v. FCC (1969), foreshadowing a decade in which the FCC would view the Fairness Doctrine as a guiding principle, calling it “the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest—the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license” (FCC Fairness Report, 1974)."
"How it worked"
"There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50. "
Posted by on July 5, 2007 03:56 PMThe Fairness Doctrine was based on the idea that the public air ways belong to, guess who?, the public. So those using those air ways had an obligation to be sensitive to the needs of the public. It was assumed that the public was better served by having opposing views aired rather than by hearing only one side of an issue.
The issue does indeed have two sides. Those who opposed the Fairness Doctrine claimed that it had a chilling effect in that broadcasters would be reluctant to air a controversial program and be subjected to the burden of making sure that "the other side" also received some consideration. It is also contended the the doctrine violates free speech rights, although when the Supreme Court was faced with the doctrine it did not so hold.
The doctrine came into being in 1949 as an FCC rule, was enshrined into law in 1959 and was repealed i 1987. When Sinclair Broadcasting attempted to force its sixty-two television stations to preempt other programming in order to show a strongly anti-Kerry program before the 2004 presidential election, without allowing any opportunity for the other side to be presented, interest in the Fairness Doctrine again became an issue.
Some information about the Fairness Doctrine:
"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials."
"In 1959 Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to enshrine the Fairness Doctrine into law, rewriting Chapter 315(a) to read: “A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of conflicting views on matters of public importance.”
"It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969."
"A decade later the United States Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s constitutionality in Red Lion Broadcast-ing Co. v. FCC (1969), foreshadowing a decade in which the FCC would view the Fairness Doctrine as a guiding principle, calling it “the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest—the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license” (FCC Fairness Report, 1974)."
"How it worked"
"There are many misconceptions about the Fairness Doctrine. For instance, it did not require that each program be internally balanced, nor did it mandate equal time for opposing points of view. And it didn’t require that the balance of a station’s program lineup be anything like 50/50. "
Posted by Truth on July 5, 2007 03:57 PMTo all the pseudo-intellectual musings about the Fairness Doctrine there is one reason why it should not be invoked just because conservative ideology has found success on radio:
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) has been a liberal ideology swamp for decades.
So much for fairness - and this is a tax-supported enterprise to boot. We could go on to public universities which also are horribly tilted to the left while enjoying government support, but that would belabor the point.
Liberals are pissing mad that they no longer have a monopoly on liberal ideology dissemination. Cable news and radio have broken through the liberal vacuum and have found rapid success. This is the only reason that prominant liberals (and a stray former conservative here and there) have declared that something must be done about this.
Crocodile Tears.
Posted by 007 on July 5, 2007 05:11 PMLiberals aren't pissing mad. The right wing Hosts tell their audience that and then theaudience paorrots it in the letters to the editor.
Come up with your own point of view.
I'm a liberal and could not give adamn what crap rush three times divorcee drug addict has to say.
Posted by rick on July 5, 2007 05:42 PMTruth, you finally lived up to your name. Well done.
Posted by Tom on July 5, 2007 06:03 PMJokers abound!
” Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) has been a liberal ideology swamp for decades”
Funny guy! - Or did you mean that seriously?
PBS is a number of notches over to the right and on the whole they avoid subjects and speakers who might be seen as left-leaning. Air-America likes to call itself “Left” but they sit in the middle and lean rightwards only slightly.
About the closest to “Left” that you can find is KGNU on 88.5 FM and 1390 AM.
As for Mr.Taxar’s letter, maybe he didn’t know that the radio stations in question were actively involved in the failed coup d’etat a few years back. Chavez didn’t have them shot afterwards, or imprisoned, or even fined for actively stirring up insurrection. Even when they continued to do it, he didn’t react as we believe a dictator should.
It would be bizarre to claim that after repeatedly violating the terms of their license that they should still have their license renewed.
There is no way these stations would have been tolerated in the US.
Mr. Skank writes
PBS is a number of notches over to the right and on the whole they avoid subjects and speakers who might be seen as left-leaning. Air-America likes to call itself “Left” but they sit in the middle and lean rightwards only slightly.
Not the PBS I've ever heard.
If either Air-America or PBS ever lean to the right, Boulder county would experience irreversible geographic vertigo.
Mr.Skeptical, that might tell you where the two of us stand in relation to each other.
I have listened to PBS for about 9 years now and it looks a bit right of center to me.
… and no, I don’t live in Boulder ;)
Marvin you are correct.
PBS to the right? No they have the cancer that is left hypocrisy and non-earned self righteousness.
Posted by Stop Leftist Opression on July 5, 2007 06:43 PMA great example of the fairness doctrine unlegislated are the two CSPAN channels, which are free and sponsored by the cable television industry. A great public service. Capitalism at its best.
Posted by Truth on July 5, 2007 06:57 PMThre first few posters on this topic want to claim that the fairness doctrine is a right wing "wag the dog". Then claim no one in the democratic party has proposed this. HOW WRONG! true the Republicans are talking about this. Sen. Lott leading the charge from the supposedly right. However Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry among others both right and left have been talking about this. While Kicinch on several occasions has actually bfrought the fairness doctrine to committee.
Why is it being proposed? It is simple. Both sides of the isle are upset at the fact talk radio shed light on thier hypocracy and arrogance toward the American voter.
Dispite vocalizing myths about PBS being middle of the road and NPR being fair and balanced. Air America a serious talk network, the true fact remains that talk radio is popular and successful. The market it mainly goes after are those terrible conservative thinkers. Heaven help us that capitolism works. That talk radio has a viable and profitable market. It is not the fault of anyone that it is so. To blame a conspirocy being behind failed and utterly terrible radio not making it is absurd. Yes there are markets that left leaning radio does succeed in. In Seattle foe example. San.Francisco another.
What really is at the heart of both sides of the isle wanting to revive the fairness doctrine is the fact they had thier feet held to the fire and now will be held responsible for thier poor representation of thier constituants.The fairness doctrine is being pursued and needs to be shot down just like the shamnesty bill was.
Truth,
You now disagree with two of the 10 amendments in our Bill of Rights. Perhaps, you can go for the trifecta by telling us your views on gun control.
"Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
"Amendment IIA well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
"Amendment XPosted by John II on July 5, 2007 08:55 PMThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Hi, johnny, good to hear from you. Getting anyone to go along with your desire to overthrow the government?
Posted by Truth on July 5, 2007 09:32 PMThe reason that right wing radio works is that there is a market for it. The reason that internet news sources work is that there is a market for it. If the more traditional media was providing what people want, they would not be listening to right wing radio or spending time on internet news.
ABC, NBC, and CBS were providing pap that few liked. Now their market share is small and mostly limited to older people.
Air America, PBS and NPR need subsidies because people don't like them enough to pay for for them.
The reason for regulation of the airwaves was to prevent a monopoly on news. In case nobody has noticed, we don't have this problem any more. With cable, direct radio, and internet streaming media, we are not likely to have this problem for the foreseeable future.
Posted by Yaakov Watkins on July 6, 2007 06:27 AM"If the more traditional media was providing what people want, they would not be listening to right wing radio or spending time on internet news."
Unfortunately, what most people seem to want is affirmation of their simplistic and ill-informed views and lot's of vitriol aimed at scape-goats du jour.
I don't think it's possible for traditional media to give people what they want because the modern forms of media are so much better (mainly due to their interactivity). For instance, this once great paper is trying to mimic cable news by putting all their eggs in the sensational crime basket. It's a bad move. True crime is much more engaging on the internet, where you can call up pictures and video to satiate your ambulance chasing needs. Sports section aside, the only useful part of this paper right now are these interactive online forums.
"ABC, NBC, and CBS were providing pap that few liked. Now their market share is small and mostly limited to older people."
Actually, network news still crushes cable news in total viewers. Check out this article:
http://www.journalism.org/node/759
Posted by Charles B on July 6, 2007 07:12 AMBango thinks PBS and air America are right wing? Charles B do you think anyone should take what he says seriously? I realize that you do not speak for him, nor he for you, but I a truly interested in your opijniion here.
AF
"Mr.Skeptical, that might tell you where the two of us stand in relation to each other.
I have listened to PBS for about 9 years now and it looks a bit right of center to me"
Bango,
Just because they are to the right of you, doesn't mean they are right of center. It just shows how far left of center you are.
Colorado is east of California; we are still in the west, though.
Posted by Mike on July 6, 2007 08:38 AMThanks Mike. You took the words right out of my mouth.
When I read that line from Bango I about fell out of my chair.
Posted by KW on July 6, 2007 08:56 AMMike said ” Just because they are to the right of you, doesn't mean they are right of center. It just shows how far left of center you are.”
Indeed. I am far left of centre of where Americans place the centre, but only a little bit left of where Americans actually sit when their wishes are tested.
Either way, I am going to be a few planets away from where you claim to be ;)
KW said ” When I read that line from Bango I about fell out of my chair.”
Try spacing your beers further apart, then that pesky falling off chairs thing will be reduced. ;)
Jokes aside KW, when I hear that people think PBS is left, it leaves me wondering just where you guys would place “far-right”.
AF asked ” Bango thinks PBS and air America are right wing?”
I said ” PBS is a number of notches over to the right and on the whole they avoid subjects and speakers who might be seen as left-leaning. Air-America likes to call itself “Left” but they sit in the middle and lean rightwards only slightly.”
So not “right wing” unless you count everything that is even a hair right of centre as being “right wing”
Posted by Bango Skink on July 6, 2007 09:40 AM"Indeed. I am far left of centre of where Americans place the centre, but only a little bit left of where Americans actually sit when their wishes are tested.
Either way, I am going to be a few planets away from where you claim to be ;)"
I agree. My description of where I sit is affected by my own view, obviously. I like to use the analogy of a football field; with the far left in one end zone, and the far right, religious conservatives in the other. I put myself at about the 30 yard line on the conservative side; mainly because I am not religious.
PBS could be on the 40 yard line on the liberal side, and they would be both left of me, and left of center. (as I would define center)
I am left of Rush Limbaugh and right of Rudy Giuliani, but all 3 of us are right of center. (again, as I see the center)
Posted by Mike on July 6, 2007 10:07 AMWay to quible Bango let me rephrase
Bango thinks PBS and air America are right of center? Charles B do you think anyone should take what he says seriously? I realize that you do not speak for him, nor he for you, but I a truly interested in your opijniion here.
AF
The fact that Mr. Skank believes PBS to be a bit right of center is a perfect testimony to the absurdity of government regulated speech.
Who determines what is right, left and center? Will the government document what positions belong to which side? Is a libertarian right, left, or center? How many different views must be represented? Will a conservative talk show be required to offer socialist, liberal, communist, anarchist, libertarian, and fascist views?
What about supposedly non-political talk shows that express political views on occasion? Will the morning shock-jock be required to offer a Clinton joke to go along with the usual Bush jokes?
What constitutes political talk? If I say that the minimum wage increases unemployment among young black males, am I making a political or economic statement? If a news anchor refuses to mention the increase in unemployment due to a minimum wage hike and simply states "American workers got a long overdue pay raise this week", will that be considered taking a political position?
Of course, some will argue that since the government owns the public airwaves, it has the right to regulate it. But, isn't that the problem? As long as the government owns the methods of mass communication, free speech will always be at risk. And, by the way, doesn't the government technically own the Internet?
Posted by John II on July 6, 2007 10:13 AMJohnII said ” As long as the government owns the methods of mass communication, free speech will always be at risk. “
As opposed to if they were owned by corporations?
While I agree that as long as anybody “owns” the airwaves there is a risk, I see government at least can be influenced by the vote, whereas a corporation need not care for anybody but the shareholder and in this case, the advertiser.
If a corporation “owned” them, a big corporation like Boeing could buy licenses for all the channels that became available and broadcast nothing at all, or pips, or random numbers if it so desired and you would have absolutely zero say in it.
The government “regulates” the usable frequency range, but it is “owned” by everybody.
And, by the way, doesn't the government technically own the Internet?”
Technically it’s the US military because DARPA never quite gave it up, but practically nobody does. Technically the WWW is owned by CERN, but they practically gave it all up as free for everybody.
If the US totally shut down all participation in the Internet, there would be a few technical issues, but it would be up again and function quite happily without the US.
Some sites like russianbrides.com might have to close down though ;)
It is obvious why the liberals want to close down freedom of speech on talk radio.Their ideas do not stand up to scrutiny.Some are saying that it is not true that the Democrats are for the Fairness Doctrine.Just call the offices of the Democrat leadership in DC and ask them.By the way PBS may be a little fairer now because congress cut some of their money so now they have to compete in the open market.The reason liberal talk radio failed is that they just recycled the same old lies you get from the the other liberal media.People want the truth not liberal propaganda.If anyone think this is not true then why did the liberals fail.
Posted by Ron on July 6, 2007 11:09 AMWrong! Wrong! Wrong! Everybody herein is wrong about the Fairness Doctrine. Deprivation of a Brian Stucky letter is the reason for the F.D. In fairness to Stuckey, rejoice:
It is hardly surprising that the liberal Democrats are finding fault with the president's commutation of "Scooter" Libby. However, the facts do not support the sentence in this case, especially when the special prosecution was unable to prove that a crime had been committed. It is ironic that the Democrats will stop at nothing to defend terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, yet sit in judgment of Libby. One would think it should be the other way around. In short, they have shown just who they really are. The facts speak for themselves. Brian Stuckey, Denver Post 7/5/07
Deicide Corner: None so as not to diminish the sage in Stuckey.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo (ffrf.org and ask for copy of FreeThought Today) on July 6, 2007 11:18 AMJohn II.Truth is very anti-gun .He does not trust us with guns or speech.I do not think he trusts the people with anything.Also the new Supreme Court may strike the Fairness Doctrine down because the court is more conservative[fair] now.
Posted by on July 6, 2007 11:21 AMIf the Fairness Doctrine became law who will get to be the anointed ones to regulate the so-called “fairness?” On whose terms will fairness be determined? Will those terms be challenged by yet someone else? Where would it all stop? When will true fairness be reached?
Bango Skank claimed, “PBS is a number of notches over to the right and on the whole they avoid subjects and speakers who might be seen as left-leaning. Air-America likes to call itself “Left” but they sit in the middle and lean rightwards only slightly.”
What a joke! That pretty much said it all with regard to where you sit on the political spectrum. If you see Air America as middle or rightwards, you must be somewhere to the left of…well left of just about everybody and everything.
I pretty much knew not to take you very seriously before, but this really cinches it up tight.
Mr. Skank,
"I see government at least can be influenced by the vote, whereas a corporation need not care for anybody but the shareholder and in this case, the advertiser."
Shareholders and advertisers are not trivial and not far removed from the public. I think there is a much closer relationship between citizens and business than citizens and government. If no one listens to the station, why would an advertiser bother with it? If a station cannot attract enough listeners to attract enough advertisers, why would shareholders bother with it?
But, it doesn't have to be just corporations that own the airwaves. Small businesses, citizens, charities, political groups could all buy in if they chose to. Sure, Boeing could attempt to buy all the airwaves but what good would that them? I don't think it's shareholders would approve of such a waste of money. Besides, couldn't they also try to buy all internet domains as well?
Posted by John II on July 6, 2007 11:30 AMNice try Ron, but no coconut.
Liberal talk radio fails for a bunch of reasons but none of them are what you say.
One is that it has no discernable mission because “Liberals” in the US aren’t socialists or communists, and the American population is deadly afraid of both..
The best Liberal talk radio can do is point out what a bunch of bozos any current administration is, and suggest that we all get along better and recycle more.
They lost the ability to articulate from the religious high-ground (or never had it), and so have pretty much nothing to say to the huge religious population here.
Another reason is that few of the existing media moguls are willing to host them, and few corporations would fund them
On the other hand Left-wing talk radio would do well if it could figure out a way to get funding and touch the religious population – after all, what advertiser or corporation or church would fund somebody that damned profiteering and abuse of the masses, and had any hint of atheism? Talk radio rides on the back of Corporatism which is exactly what Left-wing speakers would denounce.
Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Howard Zinn, Arundhati Roy, and David Barsamian for example could each pack an auditorium any day of the week, but what plutocrat would sponsor any of them to broadcast?
So what broadcasting they do is under the radar, never gets much mention on the main media corporations, but they have millions of listeners here and abroad.
(..tell me truly, how many in that list had you heard of before?)
Finally, talk-radio as a medium is better suited to concision and Conservative memes are more readily expressible than Liberal views would be, so the Conservative message and framing of messages is more at home in that medium.
"Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Howard Zinn, Arundhati Roy, and David Barsamian for example could each pack an auditorium any day of the week, but what plutocrat would sponsor any of them to broadcast?"
How many people does it take to fill an auditorium? 500? 1000? That's not enough to convince a "plutocrat" to give them a radio talk show.
Mr. Chomsky may be interesting enough to pack an auditorium, but could he do it every day for three hours a day? Ms. Coulter could pack an auditorium too but I doubt she'd make a good radio talk show host.
Posted by John II on July 6, 2007 11:58 AMOnce again Bango Skank uses a lot of words to say nothing.Typical liberal.There were many millionaire Democrats that tryed to give left wing radio a chance.No one listened because they could see through the lies.Bango you are just deceiving yourself.It is called lack of demand.Take a course in Economics.
Posted by Ron on July 6, 2007 12:11 PMSkank:
Arundhati Roy was among those "widely cited purveying a viewpoint that betrays an extreme animus" towards the United States.
David Barsamian Is best known for his published interviews with Norm Chomsky" (Sounds like a Mutual admiration society to me); Amy Goodman described as "radio's voice of the disenfranchised left".
Sounds like they can't get a following because who would sponser a program where the host appeals to only a few people on the left fringe.
Oh, and since you still say PBS and Air America are right of center..... What do you define as center?/// The median of the population? the mode? the mean? Center to me means the middle. Half on one side, half on the other. What about you?
AF
Christina said ” I pretty much knew not to take you very seriously before, but this really cinches it up tight.”
In that case why did you read what I wrote?
If you only take people seriously if they are on the right side of the political spectrum then I suspect you have cinched a few more things up tight than are healthy for you.
John said ” Shareholders and advertisers are not trivial”
Agreed, and that is a problem for Liberal speech in the US.
”… and not far removed from the public. I think there is a much closer relationship between citizens and business than citizens and government. “
I find that a fascinating statement because it essentially claims that a fascist system would be closer to its population than would be a democracy. Can you expand on this and perhaps limn the areas in which you think this applies and where it doesn’t?
”If no one listens to the station, why would an advertiser bother with it? If a station cannot attract enough listeners to attract enough advertisers, why would shareholders bother with it?”
To prevent another advertiser from using the medium?
To widen your question, an “owner” need not be a potential advertiser, just a body with interests in controlling the medium, and that includes denying it to others.
”But, it doesn't have to be just corporations that own the airwaves. Small businesses, citizens, charities, political groups could all buy in if they chose to. “
I agree, but if we keep devolving it, why not then just turn over control to the local population with regards low power stations, and the whole nation for high power?
In a democracy and to a slightly lesser extent in a republic, the maximum popular control lies with the government, not with the moneyed.
”Sure, Boeing could attempt to buy all the airwaves but what good would that them? I don't think it's shareholders would approve of such a waste of money. Besides, couldn't they also try to buy all internet domains as well?”
I couldn’t say what good it would do them maybe they would want it for weapons research or to prevent it messing up their avionics systems, but whomever owns the mineral rights to your yard doesn’t seem to mind that problem otherwise they would let you own them.
More to the point Rupert Murdock would love to own the airwaves and would be happy to let big chunks of it lie fallow rather than let anybody else use them. I was just pointing out that a seemingly disinterested corporation could buy them for some reason that was not evident, and thereby deny them to you.
” Mr. Chomsky may be interesting enough to pack an auditorium, but could he do it every day for three hours a day? Ms. Coulter could pack an auditorium too but I doubt she'd make a good radio talk show host.”
Good question, I imagine he could do it for a while but I don’t know for how long.
His classes are always packed, and he gets standing room-only wherever he speaks with groups up to several thousand. His books sell well and he has written a fair number so I take it that he has plenty of subject matter. I would just wonder if people might get suicidal listening to him. Either way, I suspect that he would get bumped off if he became more popularly known in the US and reached a bigger audience.
I suspect he stays alive only because he is ignored.
As for Ms.Coulter, her appeal puzzles me.
AF said ”Arundhati Roy was among those "widely cited purveying a viewpoint that betrays an extreme animus" towards the United States. “
Meaning what exactly, that she is “widely cited” (which is true), and somebody didn’t like it? “betrays an extreme animus”, come off it, she is even tempered, calm, and reasonable. If you are going to comment on her then try having something more intellectual or relevant to say.
”David Barsamian Is best known for his published interviews with Norm Chomsky"
Perhaps that is indeed what he is “best known” for. Seems like a good qualification to be a radio host.
”Amy Goodman described as ‘radio's voice of the disenfranchised left’ “
Yep, indeed. She is a pretty good interviewer, doesn’t interrupt all the time or talk over her guest, she accurately introduces a subject, and explores and gets expansion just like one would want. She doesn’t shout a lot or launch into diatribes of her own.
Seems like just what one wants in a host. Less entertaining maybe, but more useful.
”Sounds like they can't get a following because who would sponser a program where the host appeals to only a few people on the left fringe.”
Half right.
The potential audience is there, but it’s difficult to get advertisers for left-leaning programs since they tend to be somewhat against corporations. It is also difficult to get a guy like Murdock to agree to having a lefty show on his networks. The purpose of radio stations is to sell things, advertising or products and services to be specific. If a show doesn’t attract people likely to buy those products or if the show actually undermines the prestige or image of the product, company, or industry then it won’t be kept on, regardless of how important or informative it may be to the listener
” What do you define as center?/// The median of the population? the mode? the mean? Center to me means the middle. Half on one side, half on the other. What about you?”
Wouldn’t it rather be halfway down a scale of political positions mapped out by positions on key issues?
So it would be a matter of standard deviations from the midpoint of the scale that a persons opinions place them. There are several instruments available for this.
"John said ” Shareholders and advertisers are not trivial”Agreed, and that is a problem for Liberal speech in the US.
Then, how do you explain Bill Mahr, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Michael Moore? Liberal speech really only has a problem on talk radio. It thrives on television, music, print and the internet.
Here's my theory as to why liberal talk radio is not successful: age. My opinion is that most liberals are young and mostly female. Young people won't listen to talk radio for hours a day. They don't get in their car and turn on the AM stations. They probably don't even know there is an AM switch on their radio. AM radio listeners are older (I'm assuming) and more likely to listen to talk radio while sitting in traffic rather than a mindless obnoxious music station.
As for females, in my opinion, I believe they are not as interested in politics as men. Sure, they get loud about certain issues, but, in general, they don't follow politics like men do (in my humble opinion).
So, liberal talk radio faces a tough challenge because their core audience either prefers FM music or is not interested in listening to political talk for three hours a day.
KGNU FM 88.5 has a great bluegrass
show on Saturday morning.
Thanks for the tip, RickyLee! I'll have to check it out for sure. : )
Posted by Apostolos on July 6, 2007 02:31 PMJohnII 2:06
Interesting thought and on it’s face quite plausible. It would be interesting to see the numbers and how they line up against your thought.
Do you regard this youth and gender factor as being a cohort effect or a stationary demographic. i.e. do those individuals tend to stay more liberal as they age or does age move them more conservative and then the next generation of youngsters replace them as the new liberals?
Mr. Skank,
Of course, with age comes wisdom. With wisdom comes conservatism. That's why you don't see many young, hip conservatives on television. ;)
Posted by John II on July 6, 2007 02:53 PMI think it was Churchill (Sir Winston, not the one up at C.U.) who remarked about the young being necessarily liberal and the old being necessarily conservaive. Nice, pithy, quotable remark at the time. But, as is true with so many of these cliches, not something founded in facts, nor something predicting the inevitable.
Age may well bring wisdom. But wisdom hardly needs to be conservative. indeed, today's wise people live in the current world; and seek to inmprove life for themselves, and for others. That's called, "liberal", or "progressive".
Of course, there are those elderly who insist on regression, or fossilization, based on their own fantasies of what were the "good old days", and/or "how things ought-to-be/should-have-been" from the standpoint of an earlier Century. They title this form of senility, "conservative", robbing the word of its original - and true - meaning; and pass tt off as being "wisdom", when combating progress and change.
And then, as with the lead off letter writer on today's listing, Bruce Baker, they whine, cry, and throw tantrums when challenged; going so far as to denominate dissenters as "nasty thugs".
But, that's what makes the forum so much fun. I'd much rather have the membership in Baker's "nasty thug" club than be doing nothing more than disputing the validity of proposals for betterment today, and in the future, from the standpoint of "what-should-have-been" long ago.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 7, 2007 10:35 AMJohn II, most of the talk radio listeners I know are religious conservatives, usually families where both the husband and wife listen to right wing radio.
I only know of a few women of any age who listen to RWR (right wing radio) for more than a couple of minutes before some thinly veiled, mysonginistic remark catches their ears.
My young liberal friends listen to music to be sure, but they avoid RWR like the plague.
I know where A.M. is but Hannity? Rush? yuck.
Young men neither listen to NPR or RWR because they like country/western.
Still talking about the people I know.
Liberals are too busy to listen to talk radio, that is one thing I have learned, however, they will all try to get Science Friday on NPR.
I am a devoted fan of the "car guys".
Radio may be for loners with gobs of time on their hands. Usually older, unhappy men who resent women and gays and Democrats and just about anyone that isn`t them.
I am sure there are real demographics about this. I use RWR as a litmus test for potential friends.
If they listen to it I`m not going to invest my time in getting to know them. Nasty little bigot that I am.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 7, 2007 06:43 PM