Liberal print and conservative talk radio: medium or message?

FreeThoughtSociety.org ^ | 06.22.2007 | TragicHipster

[PHLSyndicate]

It has been claimed by conservative punditry for some time now that the print media is inherently biased in favor of the left. After years of anecdotal evidence, there now appears to be empirical evidence to support these claims. Recently, an investigation was performed by MSNBC on the political gift-giving habits of newspaper and magazine reporters and editors. Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, evidence seems to indicate the claims by conservatives are accurate. Newspaper reporters, or at least those that donate money to political causes and parties, are overwhelming biased in favor of the left.

The pattern of donations, with nearly nine out of 10 giving to Democratic candidates and causes, appears to confirm a leftward tilt in newsrooms.

If the donation patterns of a subset of a professional field is any indication of the overall picture, I find it hard to argue that journalism is not dominated by those of the liberal or progressive stripe. I also would find it hard to believe that their viewpoints would not enter into their writing.

Oddly enough, on the same day the previously mentioned report was released, Think Progress, a left-wing organization whose website states it is agianst a "radical right-wing agenda", reported on a study by the Center for American Progress and Free Press. Those organizations released a 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.

Some of the findings include:

-- 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.

Conservative talk radio refers to itself as conservative talk radio. It hides nothing and does not pretend to be an unbiased voice of milquetoast moderation. They are conservative and proud. Market forces have indicated over the past decade and a half that "liberal" or "progressive" talk radio simply does not work when exposed to the free market. Nothing illustrates this more than the bankruptcy of  self-described "progressive" Air America.

The elections we hold in the US are a pretty good gauge of how Americans feel about politics. In a presidential election, rarely does either major party get more than 52% of the popular vote. Americans are split down the middle in their political loyalties. Despite this, talk radio draws a disproportionately conservative listenership. I don't know what the particular demographic is or who specifically would be inclined to listen to talk radio, as opposed to someone who isn't, but whomever they are, they are pretty often conservative. On the other hand, for whatever reason, the field of journalism apparently attracts a fair number of liberals. Despite the near-equal representation of conservative and liberal viewpoints in elections and the American public, radio and print mediums attract different kinds of people -- and to an extreme on both ends.

Now everyone knows everyone's dirty secrets. Talk radio pushes a right-wing viewpoint and newspapers push a left-wing point of view.

So what?

If anything is to be learned from these findings, these two stories indicate the need for greater media literacy in America. These findings help in achieving that literacy. The more we know about the media we are consuming and the more we know about what is behind a particular piece of reporting or a viewpoint, the better able we are to digest, understand and evaluate the information we are absorbing.

The problem lies when one side or another wishes to "level the playing field" with regards to the ideological orientation of the producers and distributors of news and opinion in a particular medium. We live in a radio-scape that is a consequence of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which was legislation that guaranteed an equal presentation of viewpoints with regards to controversial and political topics. The report which detailed talk radio's domination by conservatives explicitly advocates the re-implementation of such a law. Interestingly enough, the question of implementing legislation to guarantee equal viewpoints in the newsrooms of America, whether it be print or television, has never been broached.

I don't know if it is the left's reaction to wish to use the government to change unfavorable market conditions, or if it is the general public's reaction to the radio medium, but apparently a public discussion regarding government intervention in the presentation of news and opinion on the radio is an acceptable debate to have. On the other hand, talking about having an agency such as the FCC regulate the presentation of print media would most likely be regarded as heretical and be viewed as a direct attack on the 1st Amendment and the first step towards outright dictatorship in America.

Not only does the report released by Center for American Progress and Free Press advocate the correction of "multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system", with regards to the dominance of right-wing talk radio, and a possible return to the enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine, but apparently the racial/ethnic identity and gender of the owners needs to be addressed as well. According to the following passage from the report, somehow having the government decide, or be an advocate for, one race/ethnicity over another with regards to media ownership is more in line with serving the public's interest than having listeners decide where to set their radio dial.

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.

Why is there such a divergence of opinion between the public's reaction to regulation of radio and the regulation of print? Historically, the radio waves were considered public property and the for-profit businesses which used them were socially obligated to present a fair and honest balance of opinion. Fair enough. But simply increasing the supply of left-wing opinion on the radio will not automatically increase demand. Government regulation would mean nothing if people aren't turning on their radios. If a left-wing or progressive radio station, such as Air America, can not attract a viewership large enough to be profitable, then what? Should the public then begin financially subsidizing left-wing opinion? Depending upon your political orientation, the situation with regards to the diversity of opinion on the radio dial is not ideal, but at least my tax money (or yours) isn't helping pay Rush Limbaugh's (or Randi Rhodes') salary. Besides, with two different satellite radio systems, podcasts, and the widespread proliferation of web broadcasters, we are no longer beholden to one method of radio broadcast distribution. Do laws set-up as a reaction to market conditions in the 1930s really need to be revisited? Maybe in a free and open society we should simply work to better understand how and why certain opinions are presented to us and make our decisions about how and what media we consume based on that understanding.

Instead of using the force of government to enforce diversity of opinion in a particular medium, perhaps liberals and progressives need to better understand why no one is tuning in to their viewpoints as presented on the radio.

Is it the medium?

Or is it the message?

[Khepera]

The vast majority of people want conservative values in talk as well as action. The politicians on both sides don’t want them to have it. The democraps are just more open about their desire to squelch conservative ideas and ideals.