Center for American Progress: "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 21, 2007 - 1:41pm.
Media
Hello Everyone:
Right below is a brand new Center for American Progress report that came out which is titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" that does extensive research on extreme right wing talk radio, below that is a blog about this report titled "REPORT: The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It" which already has 2756 comments on it, and below that is an article from Jonah Goldberg of The National Review who responded to this report in an article titled "Right Wing Radio -- The Eternal Enemy."
I am thrilled to finally see this issue being seriously studied and addressed after I have been talking about the urgent need to do that for so long! Here is the link where you can open up the PDF of this report which is 40 pages long and is very detailed:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf
This report confirms what I have been saying all along about how very dominant and powerful that extreme right wing talk radio is:
"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..."
Here is what this report suggests that can be done to try and seriously deal with extreme right wing talk radio:
"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..."
Here is a post that I did where you can contact Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and encourage them to seriously deal with this very important issue:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12110
Nancy Pelosi is going after Rush Limbaugh & Company with The Fairness Doctrine!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 15, 2007 - 2:10pm.
Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing talk radio have been the most powerful water carriers for Bush, his rubber stamp Members of Congress, the top advocates of Neocon foreign policy, and for the Neocon GOP activist base as I have previously documented:
http://www.gop.com/GetActive/CallTalkRadio.aspx
The RNC is OFFICIALLY tied to Rush Limbaugh (who is right at the top of their list) and to extreme right wing talk radio on their website. The RNC and the Neocon GOP activist base are so dependent on extreme right wing talk radio that their campaign efforts would probably be crippled to some degree in 2008 if it could somehow be legally weakened!
Here is a summary of some of my past research to show just how powerful that Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing talk radio are, to show how much water that they carry for Neocon GOP candidates, and to show how much that they blatantly lie about their political enemies which includes Gen. Clark:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7735
ANALYSIS & DOCUMENTATION: PEW stats on Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly & the Media!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 1, 2006 - 3:29am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9122
DOCUMENTATION & ANALYSIS: Bush met with Sean Hannity & Media to Firm Up Support!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 19, 2006 - 7:59am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11989
REFUTATION: Rush Limbaugh attacked Gen. Clark and lied about him on Wed., May 2!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 3, 2007 - 12:52am.
Any serious talk of Democrats bringing back The Fairness Doctrine is just like Kryptonite to Rush Limbaugh and to his extreme right wing talk radio pals! It drives them absolutely crazy:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10583
Limbaugh & Hannity react to Democrats trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 18, 2007 - 2:51pm.
Democrats (and even moderate Republicans who they hate just as much) are clearly losing the media war to Rush Limbaugh and to extreme right wing talk radio as I have credibly documented:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11479
ZOGBY: 83% of voters think that the media is biased; Democrats seem to be losing
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 16, 2007 - 1:25pm.
Keith Olbermann in my opinion is an excellent example of someone who understands how important that this issue is and is willing to get up off of his butt and do something serious about it:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11762
Keith Olbermann asks good questions about Imus leading to the Fairness Doctrine!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 4:35pm.
Gen. Clark has personally stepped up to the plate to answer this challenge head on and I have personally heard him encourage his supporters to do the same thing:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Wes Clark fight for Dems on Hannity
Submitted by larry on June 22, 2006 - 7:57pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191#comment-111351
Gen. Clark on media response from 2/11/05 when I saw him speak!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 23, 2006 - 5:35am.
This media war against the extreme right wing media is very important in my opinion because whoever controls the media will for the most part control a lot of the agenda and much of what is talked about in the news all the way up to 2008 and beyond!
Whoever is able to do that better in the media will influence more impressionable people and these are the main people who will be up for grabs in the 2008 election. The results of the 2008 election as far as The White House and Congress are concerned are very important because that will probably decide what will ultimately happen in Iraq as well as other key issues!
Please feel free to forward this information on to your lists so that more people can see this important Center for American Progress report!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html
The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio
By John Halpin, James Heidbreder, Mark Lloyd, Paul Woodhull, Ben Scott, Josh Silver, S. Derek Turner
June 20, 2007
Read the full report (PDF)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf (40 Pages)
Despite the dramatic expansion of viewing and listening options for consumers today, traditional radio remains one of the most widely used media formats in America. Arbitron, the national radio ratings company, reports that more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, “a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet.” Although listening hours have declined slightly in recent years, Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006.
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.
- 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.
This dynamic is repeated over and over again no matter how the data is analyzed, whether one looks at the number of stations, number of hours, power of stations, or the number of programs. While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast.
These empirical findings may not be surprising given general impressions about the format, but they are stark and raise serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.
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.
In contrast, stations controlled by group owners—those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market—were statistically more likely to air conservative talk. Furthermore, markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were statistically less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations.
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.
In the pages that follow, we believe our analysis of the talk radio marketplace merits serious consideration of the remedies we then present.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf (40 Pages)
- Read the full report (PDF)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives.
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.
Digg It!
Filed under: Media
Posted by Faiz June 20, 2007 2:08 pm
Permalink | Comment (2756)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWE3MThlMjgyMGRiZmQ4ZThjODhlNzFlNDIxYzYwZWY= 
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Right Wing Radio -- The Eternal Enemy [Jonah Goldberg]
I just got this press release from the Center for American Progress: ADVISORY: New Report Documenting Conservative Domination of Political Talk Radio Conference call to discuss new CAP, Free Press report Washington, DC – A major new study of all the news/talk radio stations controlled by the top five commercial station owners documents in detail the massive imbalance between conservative and progressive talk radio broadcast each weekday. The study, set for release this Thursday, June 21st, 2007, by the Center for American Progress and Free Press, raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans and providing a range of information on important public issues. Statistical analysis of all 10,506 licensed-stations reveals how media ownership and consolidation over the past decade has contributed significantly to the one-sided nature of political talk radio. The report outlines specific policy solutions to address the imbalance and ensure that the commercial use of public airwaves serves local and community needs.
Me: Let's stipulate that the report is accurate about the fact that conservatives dominate talk radio. Who among us is shocked by this very old news? What I find simply amazing is that liberals see nothing wrong with using the state to police media content when they don't like the content.
Does anyone really believe liberals would even entertain this renewed passion for the fairness doctrine if talk radio were overwhelmingly liberal? It just strikes me as so transparently opportunistic and unprincipled. If a conservative were to argue that the state should get involved in making Hollywood, or the biggest newspapers, or the broadcast news networks, or leading museums, publishing houses, or universities less liberal, liberals would justifiably scream bloody murder about censorship and propaganda.
http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/040420-tk-2.html
http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml
Yes, yes, I know that they are public airwaves, blah blah blah. But every industry relies on some public accommodation of some kind. Museums and universities get major subsidies, tax breaks etc, newspapers are given all sorts of special considerations, from access to government workings and legal leeway in the courts. Indeed, many leading journalists argue for the de facto licensing of elite journalists by making them immune from prosecution under whistleblower and other laws against leaking. And the biggest newspapers are also deeply involved in radio and tv broadcasting. And let's not even discuss public broadcasting.
In other words, I'm sure if we conservatives thought about it for a few minutes, we could come up with all sorts of ways the state could use its power to strong-arm other bastions of artistic and political expression to provide more "balance." But (with the exception of public broadcasting) you don't hear much of that from conservatives, do you? Meanwhile, in the one area of the media where liberals are at a disadvantage and can't compete in the marketplace, they want to draft the state to do what Air America couldn't. What sore losers. Suck it up for Pete's sake.
http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTE0YTI3MWU2OWE0NjBkMzQ4NjQ1NTg2M2U3NmQyYWE=
and another thing...
THE MARL LEVIN BLOG
Thursday, June 21, 2007
This Is Not Progress
The Center for American Progress and Free Press (yeh, right) is a sleazy operation. It was set-up by Bill Clinton's impeachment chief of staff, John Podesta, and is run by him today. It is no coincidence that Podesta would issue this report now, as its purpose is to help Hillary Clinton by unleashing yet another assault on talk radio. Groups like this claim to speak for the public and wrap themselves in fairness and equality. But their purpose is to intimidate radio executives. The fact is that the Clintons and the Democrat Party created Air America. It is a failure. The public has tuned it out and it doesn't get ratings. And before Air America, the public rejected such short-lived liberal hosts as Mario Cuomo and Jesse Jackson. Talk radio is the most democratic broadcast forum in existence. Competition is fierce between hosts, between companies, and even with hosts within the same companies. Talk radio must also compete with all the other offerings in radio — including all news, sports, urban, rock-and-roll, hip-hop, business, Spanish, etc. There has never been more diversity in programming. Talk radio must also compete with IPods, Internet broadcasting, and other technologies that offer entertainment and content.
In the name of speech and competition, the report calls for severe government regulation of talk radio.
The Center for American Progress and Free Press is an IRS designated tax-exempt 501 (C)(3) organization, based on its representation to the IRS that it is a non-partisan group operating in the public interest. My guess is that Podesta is in regular communication with the Clinton campaign and he or others may well be coordinating some of their activities on her behalf and on behalf of the Democrat Party. A tax-exempt group must not participate in partisan political activity. If an investigation is warranted, it seems to me the IRS ought to look at the Center for American Progress's tax status — in the public interest, of course.
UPDATE: http://michellemalkin.com/
UPDATE II: Look at the Center for American Progress's deep ties to Democrat funders and operatives. Here, here, here, and here.
Here's an excerpt from Frontpagemag.com:
The institutional manifestation of the Hillary-Soros axis is a group called the Center for American Progress, whose president John Podesta formerly served as chief of staff to the Clinton White House. Hillary has no official connection to the Center. However, her dominance of the organization seems to be something of an open secret among leftists. One insider told a UPI reporter that the Center is “the official Hillary Clinton think tank.” Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation wrote of the Center, “It’s not completely wrong to see it as a shadow government, a kind of Clinton White House-in-exile – or a White House staff in readiness for President Hillary Clinton.” The Center for American Progress received its start-up funding from Soros and was, in fact, Soros’ brainchild.
Rush Limbaugh's trash and hate is the equivalent of political pornography in my opinion which should be regulated by law!
Pornography is legal and is protected under free speech BUT it is heavily restricted under the law due to being very inappropriate for certain audiences!
The same is also true about people like Howard Stern who are on pay television now because they cannot survive on regular television without getting heavily fined and getting into legal trouble!
I would also apply that same principle to the language and sex scenes that can be seen on certain pay cable channels such as HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime BUT cannot be shown on regular television channels due to that it is considered inappropriate for certain audiences!
Please look at this link to see what Keith Olbermann quoted about Rush Limbaugh:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11762
Keith Olbermann asks good questions about Imus leading to the Fairness Doctrine!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 13, 2007 - 4:35pm.
Here is even more documentation in addition to what Keith Olbermann gave about Rush Limbaugh and the racist/insulting comments that he made to people which definitely parallels Imus, pornography, and inappropriate language in my opinion:
1) Rush Limbaugh has a parody song about Obama titled "Barack the Magic Negro" which has the same tune as Puff the Magic Dragon and is very insulting to Obama in my opinion:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html 2) Rush Limbaugh has audio parodies of Obama comparing him to Osama Bin Laden and mocking his ears: Parody Song: Kennedy Sings Obama Osama 3) Rush Limbaugh calls Obama "Barack Hussein Odumbo" and mocks his ears: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121406/content/truth_detector.guest.html December 14, 2006 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 4) Rush Limbaugh makes fun of Sen. Mary Landrieu's appearance by calling her Mary "Baby Fat" Landrieu: September 14, 2006 RUSH: "So here is Senator Mary "Baby Fat" Landrieu, ranting on the Senate floor that she's tired of "boneheaded" Republicans. Rush Limbaugh is such a fool and he has made so many stupid comments at least as bad as if not worse than what Imus did (which he is NOT the least bit sorry about) that Democrats in my opinion should be able to capitalize on, nationalize, and use Limbaugh's comments against any Neocon GOP candidates who Limbaugh is carrying water for: http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9373 How Democrats (especially Jim Webb) can use Rush Limbaugh to their advantage! Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2006 - 9:12am. Rush Limbaugh in my opinion should be as radioactive to GOP candidates who he is supporting as Imus was to MSNBC and CBS before he was fired! Limbaugh is entitled to his views (just like how Howard Stern and Imus are) BUT things like this are NOT appropriate for ALL audiences just like how pornography, foul language, and racist comments are not appropriate for all audiences and are legally restricted! That is how I personally view Rush Limbaugh and The Fairness Doctrine!
Illustrating Absurdity...
Rev. Sharpton Sings: 
"Barack the Magic Negro (That's What the LA Times Called Him)"
• The Perot Big Ear Institute
Dems Still Squealing Like Stuck Pigs
LANDRIEU: America is tired of the wrong-headed and boneheaded leadership of the Republican Party that has sent six-and-a-half-billion dollars a month to Iraq, where the front line was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, that led this country to attack Saddam Hussein when we were attacked by Osama bin Laden..."
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
Liberals Want End of 'Right-Wing Radio'
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/21/103732.shtml
Journalists Dole Out Cash to Democrats
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485
The Latest from Rush...
Rush on the Fairness Doctrine:
As Democrats Try to Hush Rush, Congress Invites Him to Speak
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062507/content/01125115.guest.html
Why You Listen to this Program
June 25, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 
RUSH: Now to the audio sound bites. This is from C-SPAN this morning. Steve Scully, the host. The topic today was talk radio and the immigration debate, and Scully takes a call from Huntersville, North Carolina, on the C-SPAN's Republican line, and he says, "Who do you listen to, caller, and how does talk radio influence the debate, if it has?"
C-SPAN CALLER: Rush Limbaugh came along, a much more polished gentleman, I think a better thinker, and certainly a more elegant speaker, and he influenced me a lot. I think the tone of your question sort of indicates that these brilliant gentlemen who speak on the radio are themselves influencing the mass of the population. It's the other way around. They're reflecting what we think.
SCULLY: And if you say that talk radio is a reflection of America --
C-SPAN CALLER: Yes.
SCULLY: -- and Rush Limbaugh represents or -- or provides a vehicle for those to express their points of view --
RUSH: Wrong.
SCULLY: -- do you think talk radio will ultimately result in the demise of this legislation?
C-SPAN CALLER: I don't know what will happen in Congress. I have no idea, but talk radio is what, as a boy, I remember the speakers on the street corner talking to the crowds. This is the same thing: people face-to-face.
RUSH: Yes. I've made that point here constantly. When the first charge was leveled on the second day of this program back in 1988, August 2nd, that I was speaking to a collection of mind-numbed robots, that I was a Svengali, a piped piper; you people were vacant, and all you did was reflect what I was saying, it was just the exact opposite. This program is a success because it reflects what you already think and gives you ammo and abilities to explain to others what you think rather than just say, "Well, I just feel it." You've got ammo now. Plus it's entertaining and informative, all that sort of stuff. We have made converts. I'm not denying that. But Scully said, "If you say talk radio is a reflection of America, represents or provides a vehicle for those to express their points of view..." Other shows may do that. I don't take enough calls to do that. Early media requests would ask me, "What are your callers saying?" I never accept the invitations because I didn't know. I don't take that many calls. I would never tell you that what happens on my show with callers is representative of America, because I don't take enough to know that, and there's nothing scientific about it. We take callers not based on what they think but whether they can speak well, you know, briefly, get it out quickly and all that. Here's another one. This is Wall, New Jersey, a caller to C-SPAN this morning.
C-SPAN CALLER: I think talk radio is very uninformative. Like your show, I'm calling now, and I can say whatever I want. On talk radio, people like, ah, Rush Limbaugh -- and people listen to these people and form their ideas based on what these people tell them! A lot of times they go on for an hour without even taking a call from an individual.
RUSH: Right.
C-SPAN CALLER: What they do is they pontificate about what they think.
RUSH: Yeah?
C-SPAN CALLER: Those people are adamant supporters of the war. They're adamant supporters of Bush. And they are, in my opinion, the most destructive element in our country today.
RUSH: Yeah, "people who speak" are the most destructive element. That's the kind of guy that the liberals, like Dianne Feinstein and all these Fairness Doctrine people are speaking to. I've explained the philosophy of this program. This program is not an over-the-back-fence show. Other hosts have guests and they take all kinds of calls, and that's fine. But you listen to this program for a variety of reasons, and the primary reason you listen to this program is to hear me! I've yet to have somebody say, "You know, I really love your show. The callers on your show are better than any other show!" I don't mean to put people down, but I never hear that. "That one caller? My God! I've never heard anything like that. That was great."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Look, you people that call the program, you know I love you. Don't misunderstand what I just said -- if you remember it (laughing).
END TRANSCRIPT
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
The extreme right wing media is very quick and comprehensive with their "rapid response" and "talking points!"
Democrats have NOTHING in place like this which I can see that responds to nearly every piece of news on every relevant issue on a national level:
http://newsbusters.org/node/13642
Group Led By Clinton’s John Podesta Outlines Assault of Conservative Radio
Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 21, 2007 - 13:52.
The supposedly “free speech” left are out in force trying to silence all voices in the media with views different than their own just in time for the 2008 presidential campaign.
Potentially more worrisome, one liberal advocate in the middle of this debate has close ties to the Clintons, although it is quite unlikely the press will convey such when its recommendations are disseminated with their predictable stamp of approval.
*****Update: Michelle Malkin is all over this.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/06/21/fairness-doctrine-watch-a-progressive-attack-on-talk-radio/
With that in mind, the left-leaning Center for American Progress published a report Thursday detailing how conservatives dominate the talk radio dial, and exactly what needs to be done legislatively for liberals to wrest control over this medium (emphasis added throughout):
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.
Imagine that?
For those unfamiliar with the Center, its President and CEO is none other than John Podesta, the former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton. And:
The Executive Vice President for Management is Sarah Rosen, who was also a member of the Clinton administration.
Senior Vice President for Development Debbie Goldberg worked for the Clinton campaign.
Senior Vice President and Director David Halperin was a speech writer for President Clinton.
Vice President of Communications Jennifer Palmieri was Clinton’s White House Press Secretary.
Senior Vice President for External Affairs Winnie Stachelberg worked at the Office of Management and Budget under Clinton.
Vice President of Finance and Operations Brad Kiley worked for the Clinton administration.
Ditto Peter Rundlet, Anna Soellner, Debbie Fine, and Michelle Jolin.
In reality, the staff and Senior Fellows listing of this Center reads like a Clinton administration Who’s Who.
Starting to get the picture? As you can imagine, this is why this group is so concerned with the following statistics it shared with its readers:
91 percent of the political talk radio programming on the stations owned by the top five commercial station owners is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.
2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk radio are broadcast each weekday on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk.
92 percent of these stations (236 stations out of 257) do not broadcast a single minute of progressive talk radio programming.
Picture becoming clearer? Yet, there was more:
76 percent of the total talk radio programming on the 65 stations in the top 10 markets is conservative, and 24 percent is progressive.
423 hours and 40 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast in the top 10 markets each weekday compared to 135 hours of progressive talk.
More conservative talk is broadcast than progressive talk in each of the top 10 markets, although the disparity is less than five hours of total airtime in New York (18 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk vs.16 hours of progressive talk) and Chicago (33 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk vs. 29 hours of progressive talk).
In four of the top 10 markets, progressive talk is broadcast only two hours or less each weekday (Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, and Atlanta). Understand why these folks are unhappy?
Of course, as you would imagine, these folks don’t believe these statistics are at all a function of market forces. Instead:
Our view is that the imbalance in talk radio programming today is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast regulation resulting from pro-forma licensing policies,17 longer license terms (to eight years from three years previously),18 the elimination of clear public interest requirements such as local public affairs programming,19 and the relaxation of ownership rules, including the requirement of local participation in management.
Color me unsurprised. As is typical, whenever a liberal is unhappy about something, it must be because government regulations aren’t tight enough.
Yet, what is truly fascinating is that one of the “problems” concerning under-regulation of this industry was deliciously implemented during the – wait for it – Clinton years:
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed the national limit on the number of radio stations that one company could own. This resulted in the wave of consolidation that carried Clear Channel from 40 stations to over 1,200, and many other conglomerates to several hundred stations apiece.
The economics of radio station ownership changed in this period as a result of consolidation. Large, non-local owners aired syndicated programming on a wider scale across their national holdings. Advertising on local stations was marketed and sold by national firms, undermining the ability of local owners to compete. Many sold their stations. The number of locally-owned, minority-owned, and female-owned stations was constrained—and the very different programming decisions these owners make were less visible in the market.
In short, the removal of ownership limits created artificial economies of scale for syndicated programming (dominated by conservative talk). Because of the size of corporate radio holdings, this business model was profitable even if localism declined and local tastes and needs were not suitably matched.
Isn’t that marvelous? So, on the one hand, these folks – most of them members of the Clinton administration – believe that the “problem” of conservative domination over the airwaves was signed into law by – wait for it! – their previous boss, likely with some of their blessings at the time.
Yet, eleven years later, recognizing that this didn’t work out well for them, they want to enact new laws to fix the problem they created.
Isn’t that special?
Without further ado, here are their recommendations:
National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations.
In terms of local ownership, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market, or specifi cally, more than:
Four commercial stations in large markets (a radio market with 45 or more commercial radio stations).
Three stations in mid-markets (between 30 and 44 total commercial radio stations).
Two stations in smaller markets (between 15 and 29 total commercial radio stations).
One station in the smallest markets (14 or fewer total commercial radio stations).
[…]
We recommend the following steps the FCC should take to ensure local needs are being met:
Provide a license to radio broadcasters for a term no longer than three years.
Require radio broadcast licensees to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest and provide public documentation and viewing of how they are meeting these obligations.
Demand that the radio broadcast licensee announce when its license is about to expire and demonstrate how the public can participate in the process to determine whether the licenseshould be extended. In addition, the FCC should be required to maintain a website to conduct on-line discussions and facilitate interaction with the public about licensee conduct.
And finally (fasten your seatbelts!):
Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting
If commercial radio broadcasters are unwilling to abide by these regulatory standards or the FCC is unable to effectively regulate in the public interest, a spectrum use fee should be levied on owners to directly support local, regional, and national public broadcasting.
A fee based on a sliding scale (1 percent for small markets, 5 percent for the largest markets) would be distributed directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner.
We estimate that such a fee would net between $100 million and $250 million and would not overly burden commercial radio broadcasters.
As you might imagine, the first set of recommendations are a total perversion of the free-market system.
Yet, what’s potentially more amusing about all this is the final category concerning violators paying a fine to support public broadcasting.
Think about it: if the plan is to get more liberal points of view on the airwaves, and these folks are looking to get more money to public broadcasting, aren’t they basically admitting that PBS is INDEED a disseminator of liberal opinions?
Somehow they missed this delicious irony…or did they?
Of course, if a left-leaning group composed largely of Clintonistas are willing to admit the liberal bias at PBS, maybe the discussion should be whether or not government funding to this organization should be immediately halted.
Barring that, it seems logical given this group’s concern for balance in media that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Time, Newsweek, the Associated Press, Reuters et al should have to pay moneys to Fox News, the Washington Times, the National Review, and the Weekly Standard to compensate for liberal bias in print and on television.
Now that’s a cockamamie scheme I might be able to get behind.
Noel Sheppard's blog | login or register to post comments
Categories: 2008 Congressional | 2008 Presidential | Campaigns & Elections | Censorship | Conservatives & Republicans | Conspiracy Theories | Corporate Liberalism | Covert Liberal Activists | Liberals & Democrats | Media Bias Debate | PBS | Regulation
Vernon McKenzie,(11) director of the School of Journalism of the University of Washington, reports such a meeting in September, 1932, when he sat on the platform within ten feet of the Führer.
A Canadian friend who has heard Hitler speak many times expresses succinctly the power of the Leader's eloquence or demagogy, whatever you may call it.
"I could listen to Hitler talk for an hour on one side of a subject," he says, "and then if he turned around and for the next hour directly contradicted everything he had previously said, I would follow him and believe him. That is what I think of Hitler's persuasive powers! If he can get me that way, how much more can he get the German audiences?
http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/German%20Propaganda.html
DEMAGOGY - one-party system
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This SourceMain Entry: fascismPart of Speech: nounDefinition: dictatorshipSynonyms: absolutism, autocracy, bureaucracy, demagogy, despotism, nazism, one-party system, party government, racism, regimentation, totalitarianism
A Wes Clark Presidency in 2008 would definitely help to put a monkey wrench into the gears of extreme right wing talk radio:
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/wes_clarks_feeling_on_media_co.html
Wes Clark's feeling on Media Consolidation
"We need to distribute the ownership in media. We need to have the fairness in broadcasting rules put back in place."