From the San Jose Mercury News earlier this week: How the right wing dominates talk radio. Excerpt:
A report by the
progressive (read liberal) Center for American Progress released last
week concludes that 91 percent of weekday radio shows heard this spring
were conservative, and 9 percent were progressive.That added up to 2,570 hours a day of right-wing flapping on the
airwaves, compared to only 254 hours of liberal talk, heard across the
country.It’s a little more even in the Top 10 radio markets, such as New York,
Los Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco, where a combined 76 percent is
conservative.If radio were a bird, it would only be capable of flying in circles. …
My first inclination, when I saw the study, was to take a conservative
slant – the market gets what the market wants. And if people who listen
to radio prefer to listen to conservatives, then the stations are
serving their communities.But a deeper look into the study shows the market forces aren’t really free.
What has happened is that in the past two decades, thanks to heavy
lobbying by the broadcasters, Congress relaxed the rules limiting the
number of stations owners can accrue, allowing for the makings of
behemoth companies that could save money by syndicating the same shows
into hundreds of markets.Which, he study concludes, means less diversity and fewer connections to the local market.
"The rise of right-wing radio coincides with the fall of the market
caps," says John Halpin, a senior fellow with the center."It’s no longer a free market but a highly controlled non-competitive
market. It’s not like anyone can set up their fruit stand and compete." …
The real problem is that with fewer owners, there are fewer choices and fewer voices.
I’m surprised that conservatives who usually argue for the rights of
the individual aren’t more afraid of the media takeover by just a few
companies.It’s really not free speech if you can only hear one side.
The article didn’t point to the source material; here it is: The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, with the free full report here (PDF).
JD Lasica, founder of Inside Social Media, is also a fiction author and the co-founder of the cruise discovery engine Cruiseable. See his About page, contact JD or follow him on Twitter.
Of course, you are also assuming that these corporations are putting ideology above profits.
Hmm, do evil by spreading evil messages or by making the most profit. What is a poor, evil right winger to do?
Are you arguing for the same analysis/conclusions for other traditional media as well (which happen to be mostly left leaning – oh, excuse me – which happen to agree with you and hence are always telling the truth.).
Would anyone seriously believe that if the government could go into monopoly newspaper markets and require “balance” in newspaper opinion sections that the resulting product would be worth reading? Could it be done without a gross violation of the First Amendment?
If not, then just because the government has the thin reed of “public airwaves” to justify regulation, journalists and everyone else who cherishes free speech should not welcome this insanity.
And for those with short attention spans, remember when Bush minions decided they wanted to balance PBS and went after Bill Moyers? How can we defend the independence of PBS when we think the government should balance commercial radio?
The right wing talk show ideology is just an attempt to provide a veneer of respectability to a “ME FIRST” mindset.
It is not surprising that the political talk shows are dominated by folks who equate self-interest and greed – it’s all about looting the public purse.
Interesting related column in The Economist: