Right's Reign on Talk Radio Called 'Structural Imbalance'-(Lib 40 Page Report)

CNS News Service ^ | 6-22-07 | Randy Hall

[tcrlaf]

(CNSNews.com) - Charging that "right-wing talk reigns supreme on America's airwaves," two liberal groups on Thursday called for increased government regulation and greater diversity of commercial radio station owners to "close the gap" between the amount of conservative and "progressive" talk.

An analyst with a conservative media watchdog group responded by calling the organizations' recommendations an example of "amazing liberal hypocrisy."

"There's very little free speech and free choice in a market system that pushes one-sided information 90 percent of the time," said John Halpin, a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress (CAP) and one of the authors of a new report, entitled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio."

Speaking during a telephone news conference, Halpin said his organization and the media reform group Free Press carried out two statistical analyses -- one examining the news/talk stations run by the largest owners of commercial stations and another looking at all 65 news/talk outlets in the country's top five markets.

"In each case, we found overwhelming evidence of complete conservative dominance of the political talk programming at both the station-by-station and market-by-market level," he said.

According to Halpin, these surveys produced several 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 nine percent progressive;

Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations, compared to 254 hours of progressive talk;

A total of 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive, including the recently relaunched Air America network; and

In four of the top 10 markets - Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia and Atlanta - progressive talk is broadcast only two hours or less each weekday.

Derek Turner, research director of Free Press, said "the potential one-sidedness on the radio dial in terms of political programming is strongly and directly related to ownership and market structure."

Turner argued that "increasing diversity and localism in ownership will produce more diverse speech [and] more choice for listeners."

Mark Lloyd, another CAP senior fellow, attributed the "imbalance" to "the breakdown in the Federal Communications Commission regulatory system during the Reagan administration in the 1980s and the elimination of caps on ownership in telecommunications during the 1990s."

'Public steward'

Lloyd stressed that CAP and Free Press are not joining the Democrats in Congress who want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, a federal regulation that required broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue.

"Our goal is not less speech, but more speech," said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott. "We want more voices on the radio."

He recommended that local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations be restored "to reduce consolidation. It's not going to hurt anybody's business. It's still going to be a very profitable industry if you can only own 10 percent of the stations in a market."

Also, the organizations called on the government to reduce the commercial broadcasting license period from eight years to three. To ensure that local needs are being met and diverse opinions aired, owners would be required to "get feedback from the local community."

In a further recommendation, "we have to acknowledge that broadcasters have public service responsibilities. They broadcast over the public airwaves [which are] worth billions of dollars." In return, "these broadcasters are public stewards. They have to give us our money's worth" in community service.

Scott pointed out that "Verizon Wireless pays $5 billion or more to be able to use the public airwaves however they like." By contrast, "the broadcasters pay zero, and therefore, we need that billion dollars' worth of public service. Right now, they're not giving it to us."

And if station owners choose not to do so, Scott warned, "then we're going to have to get the money from them just like we get the money from all the other licensees of public airwaves." The money raised from such fines, he said, could be used "to promote the public media."

Tim Graham, director of media analysis with the conservative Media Research Center - the parent organization of Cybercast News Service - criticized both the report and recommendations.

"This study has huge holes in it," Graham said - the biggest of which "is excluding public radio talk shows. It's simply inaccurate to argue there's little or no progressive talk in major markets with National Public Radio affiliates airing Diane Rehm's show, or 'Fresh Air with Terry Gross,' or the other national and local left-leaning talk programs."

Also, Graham said, "for CAP and Free Press to argue that commercial broadcasters should pay fees to public broadcasting for a lack of balance - and then raising no question whatsoever about the tilt or the need for balance within public broadcasting - shows amazing liberal hypocrisy.

"In fact, Free Press has vociferously opposed any congressional attempt to question the balance of public broadcasting as 'partisan meddling,'" he added. "So what do they call their lobbying?"

[MrB]

“the format can work if given enough resources”

IE, supported through coercion or donation - you’ll never get enough “resources” in the free market because it’s a BAD INVESTMENT.

[raccoonradio]

Well at least she likes Rush.

Er...the BAND. Helped them get their start in the U.S. :)

>> http://www.rush.com.ar/donna.htm

[MrB]

If the people chose not to listen to them, it’s obvious (and proof that) they aren’t smart enough to make the right choices -

so the elites, through the government (FORCE), will have to make the right choice for them.

[CaptainAmiigaf]

The answer to this is in the Constitution of the USA.
“There shall be FREE SPEECH.”
Has anyone made mention of the fact there is NO legal requirement that people MUST listen to the drivel of the “liberal media”? The station selector is under OUR control, not CAP. If I wish to listen I tune in. If I find myself being insulted, I exercise my right to CHOOSE and I go to another station. Even here in Mass, believe it or not, we still retain the freedom NOT to listen. Now, even this right is coming under threat from the “progressive left”.
In Nazi Germany, it was a crime to listen to forbidden radio programs. A serious crime. Is that where we, too, are headed? You answer.

[Floyd Rivers]

“Our goal is not less speech,” said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott. “We want more voices on the radio.”

It is good to want. Try this. Gather some true talent, perhaps someone who says intelligent things, is engaging and well spoken, grow an audience (takes time), and build a darn following (may take a while). Like trees in the woods: the big strong ones do well b/c of favorable conditions and natural ability to thrive. There is no conspiracy to it.

[raccoonradio]

>>I exercise my right to CHOOSE and I go to another station. Even here in Mass, believe it or not, we still retain the freedom NOT to listen

I thought the libs were all for “choice”...except here.

[hsalaw]

People chose not to listen to them.

And that's what enrages the looney left. People don't want their cr*ppy talk shows, so the left thinks they can FORCE us to listen to them. They've tried and failed to get us to read newspapers, watch the alphabet news, and listen to ErrAmerika and NPR, so now they're trying to take over talk radio.

[robertpaulsen]

And "Whites Only" graduation ceremonies. White fraternitiers and sororities. White-only dorms, Miss White America, White History month, WET (White Entertainment Television), white rappers -- no, we have that.

I also want "diversity" in sports. (It's not quotas, don't you call it quotas -- but I'm gonna count the number of white players anyways.)

For example, only two black players at a time are allowed on any basketball court -- the other eight must be white. For starters.

[T.Smith]

"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 nine percent progressive."

"Our goal is not less speech, but more speech," said Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott. "We want more voices on the radio."

Wow. Here's a concept even a dumb conservative can grasp. In the above statistic, 91% is conservative and 9% is 'progressive', that represents 100% of radio air time. In order for there to be more 'progressive' talk time, there must be LESS conservative talk time. That would be, Ben, LESS speech.

[Buffettfan]

Hypoctitical liberal dirtbags. They want the media all to themselves.

[pacelvi]

Savage is awesome.. So is Levin, Ingraham, Medved, Miller, and especially Glenn Beck.

[pacelvi]

I doubt Jon Stewart would do well on radio... making a face doesn’t translate well over radio waves.

But i know what you were trying to say, and I agree with you.

[r-q-tek86]

Like trees in the woods: the big strong ones do well b/c of favorable conditions and natural ability to thrive.

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Rush - "The Trees"

[perfect stranger]

ping to #53

[WOSG]

PING for great retort!
“I want half of every department in every university in America to be staffed with registered conservatives, I want a competing newspaper in every city with the same funding as their leftist counterpart, I want 3 conservative, national TV channels to counter the big three, and for every socialist movie or documentary, I want funding for a conservative counterpoint. I also want a right leaning version of the ACLU, the ABA, and the AMA. “

[windsorknot]

There is indeed a “structural imbalance” in the media world in which talk radio is an island of conservative voices surrounded by a sea of “progressive” voices.

[television is just wrong]

the left reigns on TV and most other forms of media. I don’t hear anything there..

[Col Sanders]

This is what you get when folks on both sides of the aisles believe that the airwaves are a "public trust" and that this somehow makes them subject to government regulation.

It would be disingenuous on the one hand to say that the government has the power to step in and prevent Stern from saying "f**k" on the radio, but with the same breath say they don't have the power to regulate anything else. You either have the power to regulate or you don't.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Col Sanders

[Jabba the Nutt]

“I always found, at least in my past life, that it’s tougher to sell advertising on progressive talk,” he said.

"Progressives" are anti-capitalists. Why would they get enthusiastic about the products advertised on their shows and encourage their listeners to purchase those products?