REPORT: The Right Wing Domination Of Talk Radio And How To End It

[RedEarth]

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.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/radio-report/

[Deep13]

1. This is important.

If they control the information, they control the voters.
:kick: :thumbsup:

[Strelnikov_]

2. "raises serious questions about . . serving the listening needs of all Americans"

Thats quite an understatement.

[AndyTiedye]

3. Kicked onto the Greated Page!

:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

I had a bunch of these bumperstickers made up:

[sellitman]

4. What no Liberal bias?

:sarcasm:

[pnorman]

5. Restoration of the "Fairness Doctrine", would go a long way to rmedying this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
and
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

pnorman

[Robbien]

6. I have a problem with their numbers

how is this possible:

"76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive"

Here north of Chicago there is four hours of Progressive radio on Saturday. The rest of the time all over the radio dial there is rabid right wing talk programs. The only other progressive talk available is on the net. Even NPR is on a low watt station which cannot be heard over the nearest neighbor on the dial who is high watt Jeebus station.

Where is that 24 percent the study is talking about, or isn't Chicago one of the top 10 radio markets?

[Strelnikov_]

10. If you go to Page 5 of the report a figure indicates

53% Reich / 47% Progressive content in Chicago.

Didn't know how lucky you were, did you?

Go to page 20 for the data set.

[onenote]

7. As I posted elsewhere: based on a quick review, this appears to be pretty lame

For example, the report claims that from a regulatory standpoint, the Fairness Doctrine was never really repealed and that "many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it again -- thus it technically would not be considered repealed." This is simply hogwash. The FCC made quite clear that it was terminating the Fairness Doctrine and the court of appeals made clear that its decision upheld that termination. Confidence is this report isn't built by the fact that the only support given for the supposed "many legal experts" claim is a non-sequitur footnote citation to the Red Lion case -- the case that originally upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine eighteen years before the Syracuse Peace Council ruling that upheld the FCC decision to "terminate" the Fairness Doctrine on the grounds that it no longer served the public interest.

The report also claims that audience demand doesn't explain the success of RW talk radio relative to progressive talk radio. Yet, the report is lacking, as far as I can see, in any simple, clear description of actual ratings figures for various types of radio programming in various markets.

Issues relating to concentration in the media, the Fairness Doctrine and why talk radio is dominated by RW content are all serious matters warranting discussion. I fear, however, that this report is flawed in ways that will undermine whatever valid points it also may make.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnionPatch]

9. How to end it?

I thought there would be some actions that concerned people could take but all it says is the return of the Fairness Doctrine would help and more diverse ownership. No kidding!

[defendandprotect]

11. Overturning of Fairness in Broadcasting did great harm --

The overturning of the Fairness in Broadcasting doctrine by Reagan which had stood for more than 60 years did great harm. Actually, what had been worked for in the 30's as radio came on was a 37% dedication of air time to programming to inform the public. That was heavily battled.

Remember when "cable" was going to be ad free?????

We need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine . ..

As for the BS that no one listens to liberal/progressive programming, I think the reverse is true that NO ONE listens to right-wing radio anymore than they buy right-wing magazines. Most of this right-wing stuff has been funded by right-wing families over the past 30 years!!! A year or two ago -- presumably having gotten everything they want -- they indicated they would now stop.
This was Scaife, notably. But all of the right-wing periodicals/think tanks -- and presumably right-wing programming has been put forth this way.

GE -- one of the most-right-wing corporations eveer -- financed Crossfire for years.
A large disservice to the public.

Disney now continues to put the "Rev." Pat Robertson on the air. It's another fanatically right-wing company.




QUOTE: 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. <…>

[HowHasItComeToThis]

12. HOW I HATE PDF FILES, BIGGEST HOGS EVER MADE

TELL ME WHY I SHOULD EVER LIKE THEM.

PLEASE