PDA

View Full Version : Study claims conservative tilt to talk radio.



sonnylarue
06-21-2007, 05:35 PM
I know... D'UH!

But the actual numbers and ratio are surprising, yet the righty talkers whine about how much their side is in the media minoroty....

FROM RADIO INSIDER


The Center for American Progress and Free Press say their study of 257 news/talk stations shows 91% of total weekday talk programming is conservative - with ten times as much airtime as what progressive talkers get. Markets with the most conservative line-ups include Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia and Atlanta.

The group doesn't want a return to the Fairness Doctrine. However, they say bringing back tighter ownership limits will lead to more programming diversity.

Read the study

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

Ray G.
06-21-2007, 05:37 PM
There's quite the difference between the open bias of punditry and the subtle bias of news coverage.

chess
06-21-2007, 05:42 PM
My new favorite radio station "claim"....

"It's not right vs. left. It's right vs wrong."

How's that for... well, they make a stance.:)

Foolish Mortal
06-21-2007, 05:50 PM
There's quite the difference between the open bias of punditry and the subtle bias of news coverage.
Most shows on talk radio stations are pundit shows.

Ray G.
06-21-2007, 05:52 PM
Most shows on talk radio stations are pundit shows.

Yes, but I don't think anyone is actually debating that talk radio has a conservative bias(and if they do, they're idiots). It's clear that the most successful talk radio hosts are the conservatives who deliver red meat to the listeners. Most arguments of liberal media bias focus on the slant of television, radio, and print news coverage.

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 06:28 PM
Yes, but I don't think anyone is actually debating that talk radio has a conservative bias(and if they do, they're idiots). It's clear that the most successful talk radio hosts are the conservatives who deliver red meat to the listeners. Most arguments of liberal media bias focus on the slant of television, radio, and print news coverage.

And according to all actual studies on the so-called liberal slant there is no such thing. MSM is neither liberal or conservative biased, they are money biased. What they think will be the best story, etc. Anyone who still believes there is any sort of bias in the MSM is delusional and need only look at news coverage during the first term of Clinton to see how negative the press was then and then look at how much Bush was fawned over during his first term. Hell, you will still hear commentators talking about how this or that is good for Bush or how popular he is. He's been below 30% approval forever now!

One interesting study I read showed that most reporters in the MSM leaned left on social issues and leaned right on economic ones. Now, MOST rightwing pundits cite this study (leaving out the last part) as PROOF that this bias exists. The other end of the study showed however that most of the editors and publishers leaned right on both issues and identified themselves as conservatives. Since the people who run the show (including the corporate owners like NewsCorp, G.E., and Viacom) are made up primarily of conservatives the liberal media bias argument isn't exactly a solid one.

Jamie Howdeshell
06-21-2007, 06:35 PM
And according to all actual studies on the so-called liberal slant there is no such thing. MSM is neither liberal or conservative biased, they are money biased. What they think will be the best story, etc. Anyone who still believes there is any sort of bias in the MSM is delusional and need only look at news coverage during the first term of Clinton to see how negative the press was then and then look at how much Bush was fawned over during his first term. Hell, you will still hear commentators talking about how this or that is good for Bush or how popular he is. He's been below 30% approval forever now!

One interesting study I read showed that most reporters in the MSM leaned left on social issues and leaned right on economic ones. Now, MOST rightwing pundits cite this study (leaving out the last part) as PROOF that this bias exists. The other end of the study showed however that most of the editors and publishers leaned right on both issues and identified themselves as conservatives. Since the people who run the show (including the corporate owners like NewsCorp, G.E., and Viacom) are made up primarily of conservatives the liberal media bias argument isn't exactly a solid one.

your facts don't mean shit when it comes to my FEELINGS!!!!!

i FEEL like the media is biased!!

so it is.

:-x

KHAN!
06-21-2007, 06:37 PM
I know... D'UH!

But the actual numbers and ratio are surprising, yet the righty talkers whine about how much their side is in the media minoroty....

FROM RADIO INSIDER



Read the study

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

Talk radio is the only place where there it appears the right have more prominence. I mean, look at TV, where reporters contribute to the democrats over republicans 9-1.

That said, I don't fucking want the fairness doctrine enforced or "tighter guidelines". I read on another forum, where someone made a point as to why Rush or Hannity and people like that have seen success, where Air America was a failure. That person said that like it or not, the conservative talk show hosts are actually entertaining and don't bore the piss out of you like alot of liberal talk show hosts. Even the people who totally don't agree with Rush at all listen to him because they want to hear what he'll say next. It's a free market system, if stuff like that has an audience, we don't need guidelines or fucking government regulations to force shows down people's throats that end up not being listened to.

KHAN!
06-21-2007, 06:39 PM
My new favorite radio station "claim"....

"It's not right vs. left. It's right vs wrong."

How's that for... well, they make a stance.:)


That was taken from the Glenn Beck show. Which is true since he'll rip on the republicans just as bad as the democrats for doing wrong shit, like the fucking retarded immigration bill that 80% of the population doesn't want, but congress is still trying to push it through.

Andrew j
06-21-2007, 06:43 PM
I'm pretty sure all of the conservative radio guys fully admit there's more conservative talk radio than liberal.

They're argument that I've heard is that there is a market for it and there isn't a market for liberal talk radio.

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 06:48 PM
That was taken from the Glenn Beck show. Which is true since he'll rip on the republicans just as bad as the democrats for doing wrong shit, like the fucking retarded immigration bill that 80% of the population doesn't want, but congress is still trying to push it through.


Despite what Hannity claims the facts show otherwise. The immigration issue is a lot more divided than you think.

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 06:49 PM
Talk radio is the only place where there it appears the right have more prominence. I mean, look at TV, where reporters contribute to the democrats over republicans 9-1.


How so?

Foolish Mortal
06-21-2007, 06:51 PM
I'm pretty sure all of the conservative radio guys fully admit there's more conservative talk radio than liberal.

They're argument that I've heard is that there is a market for it and there isn't a market for liberal talk radio.
Because there is no market on the radio for a liberal talk show. The audience simply isn't there.

The only thing liberals listen to on the radio is music and NPR.

KHAN!
06-21-2007, 06:51 PM
I'm pretty sure all of the conservative radio guys fully admit there's more conservative talk radio than liberal.

They're argument that I've heard is that there is a market for it and there isn't a market for liberal talk radio.

Well, some said that it's not that there isn't a market, it's just that alot of liberal talk radio shows are just not very good.

It's not like people like Rush and the others want it to be purely conservative. They've all said that they wanted Air America to succeed (hell, people like Neal Boortz and others have admitted to contributing money to Air America to help them out) because they wanted the competition and they didn't want people to go on saying how Liberals didn't have a venue on talk radio. With the liberals, you get whack-jobs like Randi Rhodes which doesn't help matters at all.

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 06:52 PM
Most shows on talk radio stations are pundit shows.

That was my first thought....I listen to sports radio most of the time....

Edit: I misread your post. d'oh! :)

Andrew j
06-21-2007, 06:52 PM
Because there is no market on the radio for a liberal talk show. The audience simply isn't there.

The only thing liberals listen to on the radio is music and NPR.

I know more liberals who listen to Bill O'Reilly than conservatives that do. I guess they just like to piss themselves off.

KHAN!
06-21-2007, 06:53 PM
Despite what Hannity claims the facts show otherwise. The immigration issue is a lot more divided than you think.

I know it's alot more divided. I'm just saying that 80% of the population didn't want THAT version of the bill. There's a reason why the democratic controlled congress is seeing record low approval ratings. It's not just the democrats, it's the republicans too. They don't want to fucking listen to the people and people are getting pissed.

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 06:53 PM
It's a free market system, if stuff like that has an audience, we don't need guidelines or fucking government regulations to force shows down people's throats that end up not being listened to.

It is a market system, but it sure isn't a free market system. Keep in mind that these broadcasters are operating on PUBLIC airwaves and are under the regulatory control of the FCC.

And since these are indeed PUBLIC airwaves, there is a legitimate need to make sure that this limited PUBLIC resource serves the public good.

KHAN!
06-21-2007, 06:55 PM
I know more liberals who listen to Bill O'Reilly than conservatives that do. I guess they just like to piss themselves off.

That's what I've been saying!!!!!!! Because regardless of if they like him or agree with him, they listen because they want to hear what he'll say next or they want to get their blood pumping or they want to hear the other side of the discussion.

Ray G.
06-21-2007, 06:57 PM
Despite what Hannity claims the facts show otherwise. The immigration issue is a lot more divided than you think.

Except on this specific bill. Pretty much George W. Bush and John McCain are the only ones who want this bill. Most right wingers don't think it goes far enough in protecting our borders and lets the illegals off way too easy, and most left-wingers think it's far too restrictive.

KHAN!
06-21-2007, 06:57 PM
It is a market system, but it sure isn't a free market system. Keep in mind that these broadcasters are operating on PUBLIC airwaves and are under the regulatory control of the FCC.

And since these are indeed PUBLIC airwaves, there is a legitimate need to make sure that this limited PUBLIC resource serves the public good.

OH so you WANT the government to force down programming that no one wants to fucking listen to in the first place because it's not even remotely interesting because more people from the right side of the isle are more successful than the left. I love how people love to go on about free speech except when it applies to those who are on the opposing side.

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 06:58 PM
Because there is no market on the radio for a liberal talk show. The audience simply isn't there.

The only thing liberals listen to on the radio is music and NPR.


I've always said that most of the people who listen to Hannity and Rush et all do so to have their feelings (no matter how whacked out or wrong) validated. They plain NEED to feel they are right and that someone understands them. They hear the same old shit (tax and spend liberals want to turn the country into abortion loving peacenik sex colonies) over and over because they need to constantly be validated. Liberals by and large don't think this way. NPR, NY Times, books, blogs, whatever else they can absorb as far as information goes and having someone repeat a mantra over and over doesn't work.

That said Air America was and is a bit of a failure for any number of reasons, but liberal radio is hardly a failure. Ed Schultz is a liberal talker and his show is doing VERY well in syndication nationally in many markets.

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 06:59 PM
It is a market system, but it sure isn't a free market system. Keep in mind that these broadcasters are operating on PUBLIC airwaves and are under the regulatory control of the FCC.

And since these are indeed PUBLIC airwaves, there is a legitimate need to make sure that this limited PUBLIC resource serves the public good.

In the free market system, I GUARANTEE that if there were a liberal talk show host that made a station money, they would air them.

RickLM
06-21-2007, 06:59 PM
On the radio, whether you are conservative or liberal, you have to be entertaining and engaging. It's why Howard Stern has remained on the air so long. Liberal radio never really had a speaker who would keep liberals glued to their radios in the same way that Limbaugh keeps his audience entertained. Most of the good liberal pundits, like Jon Stewart and Colbert, are on TV. So in some sense it evens out.

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 07:01 PM
I know it's alot more divided. I'm just saying that 80% of the population didn't want THAT version of the bill. There's a reason why the democratic controlled congress is seeing record low approval ratings. It's not just the democrats, it's the republicans too. They don't want to fucking listen to the people and people are getting pissed.

People are pissed for another reason though. The number one issue for the people is getting the fuck out of Iraq. That was what turned the power over to Dems and the public feels they aren't working hard enough to accomplish this. Then you have the gas prices problem and the fact most people want Universal Healthcare and yes Immigration is in there, but it's hardly the top issue.

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 07:01 PM
On the radio, whether you are conservative or liberal, you have to be entertaining and engaging. It's why Howard Stern has remained on the air so long. Liberal radio never really had a speaker who would keep liberals glued to their radios in the same way that Limbaugh keeps his audience entertained. Most of the good liberal pundits, like Jon Stewart and Colbert, are on TV. So in some sense it evens out.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with any conspiracy.

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 07:02 PM
In the free market system, I GUARANTEE that if there were a liberal talk show host that made a station money, they would air them.

true...

But the last thing I want is for "liberal" radio hosts to parrot the lowest common denominator approach that has been so successful for conservative radio.

KHAN!
06-21-2007, 07:06 PM
People are pissed for another reason though. The number one issue for the people is getting the fuck out of Iraq. That was what turned the power over to Dems and the public feels they aren't working hard enough to accomplish this. Then you have the gas prices problem and the fact most people want Universal Healthcare and yes Immigration is in there, but it's hardly the top issue.

It's all those things. People are getting more and more pissed with all the politicians on the left and the right because they feel more and more like none of them are actually listening to the people and I think it's going to come to a head really soon.

Foolish Mortal
06-21-2007, 07:06 PM
It is a market system, but it sure isn't a free market system. Keep in mind that these broadcasters are operating on PUBLIC airwaves and are under the regulatory control of the FCC.

And since these are indeed PUBLIC airwaves, there is a legitimate need to make sure that this limited PUBLIC resource serves the public good.
The FCC's powers are not that broad. They can enforce things such as prohibiting the use of profane language and adult subject matter during certain times of day, but not much else.

And frankly, I wouldn't want them to have any more power beyond that.

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 07:06 PM
true...

But the last thing I want is for "liberal" radio hosts to parrot the lowest common denominator approach that has been so successful for conservative radio.

So there's no way that "conservatives" who listen to these guys are just normal people like you who disagree about certain things? They're just lower than you?

(I don't listen to any of those guys, with the exception of Glenn Beck, and I do so because he's funny, and he has some things I agree with. Am I the "lowest common denominator"?)

JHickman
06-21-2007, 07:06 PM
How so?

Can't believe you didn't see this today. It was plastered all over the place.
What, were you working or something? :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

It's pretty damning.

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 07:07 PM
It's all those things. People are getting more and more pissed with all the politicians on the left and the right because they feel more and more like none of them are actually listening to the people and I think it's going to come to a head really soon.

I don't disagree with this.

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 07:12 PM
The FCC's powers are not that broad. They can enforce things such as prohibiting the use of profane language and adult subject matter during certain times of day, but not much else.

And frankly, I wouldn't want them to have any more power beyond that.

I would just like them to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. And FYI - it isn't just about fairness. In fact, that is a relatively minor portion of the doctrine. The more important element was the mandate that a certain number of hours per day be dedicated for "the public good" by providing quality news and local coverage.

When they eliminated the doctrine, there was a huge sea change regarding the very nature of news and its purpose. What was once an unflashy public service dedicated to informing the populace - a necessary element of a functioning democracy - there is now shitty infotainment with dumbed-down soundbite-heavy "news" that no longer functions to inform, but to entertain and to sell viewers and listeners to advertisers.

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine did more to hurt the quality of news in this country than anything else in the last 50 years. I would also say it did more to hurt democracy in this country more than anything in the last 20 years.

I don't give a shit about whether it is conservative or liberal.
I do care about whether the majority of Americans are getting quality intelligent news versus crappy propaganda and red meat rhetoric.

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 07:14 PM
Can't believe you didn't see this today. It was plastered all over the place.
What, were you working or something? :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

It's pretty damning.

Damn work. :mad:

This is pretty similar to the Pew survey I was talking about earlier though. Journalists giving money to political candidates on either side doesn't equal a bias, especially considering their editors and publishers overwhelmingly lean the other way. The other problem I noticed with the study was that all they did was look up names on donor rolls and pulled out names they recognized as journalists. Not a very scientific study since they only looked up those who contributed (less than 200 journalists out of thousands?). What the study actually says is that very few journalists actually do contribute to political candidates, and the few who do may lean to the left. Still not close to showing a bias overall.

JHickman
06-21-2007, 07:16 PM
I would just like them to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. And FYI - it isn't just about fairness. In fact, that is a relatively minor portion of the doctrine. The more important element was the mandate that a certain number of hours per day be dedicated for "the public good" by providing quality news and local coverage.

When they eliminated the doctrine, there was a huge sea change regarding the very nature of news and its purpose. What was once an unflashy public service dedicated to informing the populace - a necessary element of a functioning democracy - there is now shitty infotainment with dumbed-down soundbite-heavy "news" that no longer functions to inform, but to entertain and to sell viewers and listeners to advertisers.

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine did more to hurt the quality of news in this country than anything else in the last 50 years. I would also say it did more to hurt democracy in this country more than anything in the last 20 years.

I don't give a shit about whether it is conservative or liberal.
I do care about whether the majority of Americans are getting quality intelligent news versus crappy propaganda and red meat rhetoric.

Nah.

Consolidation and corporatization were much bigger factors.

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 07:17 PM
I would just like them to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. And FYI - it isn't just about fairness. In fact, that is a relatively minor portion of the doctrine. The more important element was the mandate that a certain number of hours per day be dedicated for "the public good" by providing quality news and local coverage.

When they eliminated the doctrine, there was a huge sea change regarding the very nature of news and its purpose. What was once an unflashy public service dedicated to informing the populace - a necessary element of a functioning democracy - there is now shitty infotainment with dumbed-down soundbite-heavy "news" that no longer functions to inform, but to entertain and to sell viewers and listeners to advertisers.

The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine did more to hurt the quality of news in this country than anything else in the last 50 years. I would also say it did more to hurt democracy in this country more than anything in the last 20 years.

I don't give a shit about whether it is conservative or liberal.
I do care about whether the majority of Americans are getting quality intelligent news versus crappy propaganda and red meat rhetoric.

But those guys aren't trying to portray themselves as "news"....they're up front with who they are...

How does this hurt democracy? It's freedom of speech.

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 07:19 PM
Nah.

Consolidation and corporatization were much bigger factors.

Huge factors. All hail King Murdoch!!!

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 07:19 PM
Nah.

Consolidation and corporatization were much bigger factors.

They are linked. The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine opened the door for mass consolidation and corporatization.

JHickman
06-21-2007, 07:22 PM
Damn work. :mad:

This is pretty similar to the Pew survey I was talking about earlier though. Journalists giving money to political candidates on either side doesn't equal a bias, especially considering their editors and publishers overwhelmingly lean the other way. The other problem I noticed with the study was that all they did was look up names on donor rolls and pulled out names they recognized as journalists. Not a very scientific study since they only looked up those who contributed (less than 200 journalists out of thousands?). What the study actually says is that very few journalists actually do contribute to political candidates, and the few who do may lean to the left. Still not close to showing a bias overall.

Yeah, you don't have to convince me on the accuracy of most polling (although it's still a damning story, which is the point of the story itself)... I was just telling you where that guy got his 9:1 number.

Carry on...

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 07:26 PM
But those guys aren't trying to portray themselves as "news"....they're up front with who they are...

How does this hurt democracy? It's freedom of speech.

I say save it for XM, Sirrius, satellite, cable, print, and/or the internet.

Unchecked unbalanced punditry has no place on public airwaves.
(This applies to all political parties and ideologies)

JHickman
06-21-2007, 07:27 PM
They are linked. The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine opened the door for mass consolidation and corporatization.

I would argue that in a global economy they don't have to be mutually exclusive and market forces would have made them inevitable...

...but they didn't in this case, so it's a fair point.

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 07:28 PM
Yeah, you don't have to convince me on the accuracy of most polling (although it's still a damning story, which is the point of the story itself)... I was just telling you where that guy got his 9:1 number.

Carry on...

:scared:

Nothing to see here.

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 07:30 PM
I say save it for XM, Sirrius, satellite, cable, print, and/or the internet.

Unchecked unbalanced punditry has no place on public airwaves.
(This applies to all political parties and ideologies)

So should Sports Radio go away?

They give opinions there.

Dude, this is inSANE. It's CENSORSHIP.

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 07:32 PM
So should Sports Radio go away?

They give opinions there.

There is a big difference in entertainment and sports reporting and using public airwaves to promote a particular political agenda and influence our democracy.

Call me crazy, but I don't think public resources and public airwaves should be used for political propaganda.

Ray G.
06-21-2007, 07:32 PM
So should Sports Radio go away?

They give opinions there.

Dude, this is inSANE. It's CENSORSHIP.

Seriously! This is crazy. So the airwaves should be completely controlled by the government, content-wise? Good way to make the public airwaves extremely irrelevant, extremely fast.

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 07:33 PM
I say save it for XM, Sirrius, satellite, cable, print, and/or the internet.

Unchecked unbalanced punditry has no place on public airwaves.
(This applies to all political parties and ideologies)

Not to mention....who gets to decide what's what? That's VERY scary, man...

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 07:34 PM
There is a big difference in entertainment and sports reporting and using public airwaves to promote a particular political agenda and influence our democracy.

Call me crazy, but I don't think public resources and public airwaves should be used for political propaganda.

But WHY?

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, because I don't agree with most of what he says. Shouldn't I have the right to CHOOSE?

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 07:35 PM
But WHY?

I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, because I don't agree with most of what he says. Shouldn't I have the right to CHOOSE?

I am not saying Limbaugh can't do what he is doing. Or Al Franken. Or Bill O'Reilly.

I just don't think they should be using public resources to do it.

It isn't that hard to understand.

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 07:36 PM
I am not saying Limbaugh can't do what he is doing. Or Al Franken. Or Bill O'Reilly.

I just don't think they should be using public resources to do it.

It isn't that hard to understand.

So who gets to decide what can, and can't be aired?

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 07:37 PM
Before anybody else gets all hysterical about the fairness doctrine, I really recommend you do some research on the history of broadcast journalism in the US. The Fairness Doctrine served us well for decades.

Ray G.
06-21-2007, 07:39 PM
Randy, do you think Jim Lehrer should be taken off NPR? How about Tavis Smiley?

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 07:40 PM
So who gets to decide what can, and can't be aired?

This isn't that difficult. The guidelines were spelled out in the FCC charter. They served us well for decades.

Does anybody really think the level of discourse on the radio has been elevated by the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine? Did it make broadcast news more responsible?

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 07:41 PM
Randy, do you think Jim Lehrer should be taken off NPR? How about Tavis Smiley?

Are you saying that Lehrer is a partisan political pundit using public airwaves to promote a political agenda?

Heck... if anything, I think Lehrer is probably the absolute best example of non-partisan and quality news coverage in all of broadcast news today.

I am afraid I don't know who Tavis Smiley is, but if he is a partisan political pundit using public airwaves to promote a political agenda, then I say fire him.



That being said, I have less of an issue if a station airs multiple viewpoints and genuinely tries to be "fair and balanced". PBS for example tries to balance Bill Moyers with Wall Street Week and The Nightly Business Report.

What I really have a problem with is an entire commercial station using public airwaves and their entire broadcasting line-up being used to promote a partisan political agenda.

artimoff
06-21-2007, 07:46 PM
It is a market system, but it sure isn't a free market system. Keep in mind that these broadcasters are operating on PUBLIC airwaves and are under the regulatory control of the FCC.

And since these are indeed PUBLIC airwaves, there is a legitimate need to make sure that this limited PUBLIC resource serves the public good.

The FCC's original job was to make sure that stations didn't spill over into another station's frequency. That was is. I miss those days.

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 07:48 PM
The FCC's original job was to make sure that stations didn't spill over into another station's frequency. That was is. I miss those days.

Incorrect. I recommend you read the Communications Act of 1934.
(But, in all fairness (heh, I made a pun) the Fairness Doctrine came in 1949.)

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 08:19 PM
"The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner."

Again, who decides what's fair? The FCC?

As good as it sounds, there's no way opinion couldn't get in the way of things....

That being said....yes, it's 'public air', but it's not like it's controlled by the government. Hand it over to the FCC, and it will be.

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 08:54 PM
"The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner."

Like I said earlier, there was more to it than this. There was the belief that the FCC should grant licenses of the the broadcast airwaves, but in return, broadcasters had devote a certain percentage of their programming time and resources to educational programming and news programming.

It wasn't just about how issues were covered, but it also dictated that a certain amount of time and resources had to be spent for the public good.

It was a fair bargain. We give you access. You provide an important community/national service.

When this was eliminated, broadcasters sought to make the news a profit center. This led to the inevitable degradation in reporting quality, as well as the lowest common denominator approach utilizing flashy graphics, quick soundbites, and punditry.

You know... all the shit Stewart and Colbert lampoon.

So...

If you want a good introductory background on the subject, here are some things I'd recommend:

E.R. Murrow's Keynote Speech at the RTNDA (http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/murrow.shtml)

Ted Koppel's Keynote Speech at the RTNDA (http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/koppel.shtml)

PBS - FRONTLINE - "What is Happening to the News?" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part3/)


Those are good places to start. And they are all much more eloquent about this issue than I am.








note:

I should also add that I am just talking about the use of public airwaves.

Cable, satellite, internet, and print can all go crazy with their bad selves. We need the free market of ideas.

I just hold public airwaves to a higher standard demanding that they properly serve the public.

gibbEy
06-21-2007, 09:03 PM
Like I said earlier, there was more to it than this. There was the belief that the FCC should grant licenses of the the broadcast airwaves, but in return, broadcasters had devote a certain percentage of their programming time and resources to educational programming and news programming.

It wasn't just about how issues were covered, but it also dictated that a certain amount of time and resources had to be spent for the public good.

It was a fair bargain. We give you access. You provide an important community/national service.

When this was eliminated, broadcasters sought to make the news a profit center. This led to the inevitable degradation in reporting quality, as well as the lowest common denominator approach utilizing flashy graphics, quick soundbites, and punditry.

You know... all the shit Stewart and Colbert lampoon.

So...

If you want a good introductory background on the subject, here are some things I'd recommend:

E.R. Murrow's Keynote Speech at the RTNDA (http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/murrow.shtml)

Ted Koppel's Keynote Speech at the RTNDA (http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/koppel.shtml)

PBS - FRONTLINE - "What is Happening to the News?" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/part3/)


Those are good places to start. And they are all much more eloquent about this issue than I am.

I don't disagree, that in principle, it's a good idea....but it's up to the media to decide what they put on the air, and you can't help but have personal views enter things...

I wish to GOD the television news media would act with this restraint, but the sad part is, they don't. What's "news" is Paris Hilton, and "attractive white woman missing"

Hell, I wish our politicians acted differently, but all they care about is what party they belong to.

News here is based on ratings, because it's all about money.

I honestly wish I knew the answer to it all, but I feel that government censorship of what is on the air is just a scary way to turn....

Would you be in favor of this if the Bush Administration was in charge of it?

btw - I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything....like you said, there are people much more eloquent than I am as well. :)

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 09:11 PM
News here is based on ratings, because it's all about money.

And what I am saying is that broadcast news didn't used to be that way - and a case could be argued that it may have been better for democracy when it wasn't.




I honestly wish I knew the answer to it all, but I feel that government censorship of what is on the air is just a scary way to turn....

Would you be in favor of this if the Bush Administration was in charge of it?


I think the Fairness Doctrine served us well through various administrations - Republican and Democrat. And there were no lasting cries of big brother censorship back then. There is no reason to think it couldn't again.

KHAN!
06-21-2007, 09:25 PM
I think the Fairness Doctrine served us well through various administrations - Republican and Democrat. And there were no lasting cries of big brother censorship back then. There is no reason to think it couldn't again.

Wow.......this scares me. I'm really starting to question your sanity. I mean seriously, let the fucking people decide for themselves what they want to listen. Let's not have the government dictate what can be aired out of "fairness".

A couple of things though. Hannity and Limbaugh are not news shows, they are the fucking equiviant of a newspaper editorial. They never call themselves a journalist. Anyone who actually thinks that they are news are fucking idiots. And also, are there people putting guns to the heads of listeners? Are they forcing them to listen to Hannity? People can decide what they want to listen to.

Like I said, some people like to talk about free speech and go on about it.....until someone from an opposing view is popular, then they want government regulation to stifle that. Don't you just love partisan hypocracy?

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 09:28 PM
Wow.......this scares me. I'm really starting to question your sanity. I mean seriously, let the fucking people decide for themselves what they want to listen. Let's not have the government dictate what can be aired out of "fairness".

A couple of things though. Hannity and Limbaugh are not news shows, they are the fucking equiviant of a newspaper editorial. They never call themselves a journalist. Anyone who actually thinks that they are news are fucking idiots. And also, are there people putting guns to the heads of listeners? Are they forcing them to listen to Hannity? People can decide what they want to listen to.

Like I said, some people like to talk about free speech and go on about it.....until someone from an opposing view is popular, then they want government regulation to stifle that. Don't you just love partisan hypocracy?

Go back and read the past few posts from Randy. It's not what you think.

Doc Randy
06-21-2007, 09:32 PM
Wow.......this scares me. I'm really starting to question your sanity. I mean seriously, let the fucking people decide for themselves what they want to listen. Let's not have the government dictate what can be aired out of "fairness".

Welcome!

You've been here for a day and you are already cussing at me and questioning my sanity. It usually takes weeks for people to start in on that. Let me personally thank you for elevating the discourse.

I don't know how old you are, but are you telling me you think the years of 1949 to 1987 were defined by information oppression and government control of the media?

KHAN!
06-21-2007, 09:38 PM
Welcome!

I don't know how old you are, but are you telling me you think the years of 1949 to 1987 were defined by information oppression and government control of the media?

Is this a trick question?

Besides, that was a different time. Back then, there were alot fewer venues for information. Now, there is a tremendous amount of venues for information, so all your hyping of this is stupid because the Fairness doctrine is obsolete and only seems to be brought out by liberals because of "oh there are too many conservatives on the radio!! we need it to be more like print and TV where we control it !!!!". So, just sit back down there, chief.

Brad N.
06-21-2007, 10:06 PM
Is this a trick question?

Besides, that was a different time. Back then, there were alot fewer venues for information. Now, there is a tremendous amount of venues for information, so all your hyping of this is stupid because the Fairness doctrine is obsolete and only seems to be brought out by liberals because of "oh there are too many conservatives on the radio!! we need it to be more like print and TV where we control it !!!!". So, just sit back down there, chief.

Ahhh, that lovely liberal media lie rears its ugly head again. :no:

Colby
06-21-2007, 11:08 PM
I know more liberals who listen to Bill O'Reilly than conservatives that do. I guess they just like to piss themselves off.

Actually, if Bill's writings can be believed, he really is pretty centrist- he swings far left on social issues, right on crime and economics, and moderate-to-hawkish on foreign policy.

The problem is, he's a giant douchebag. I also think he goes after his liberal guests much harder, but I might be imagining it. (Plus, he, unlike Hannity and Rush, DOES call himself a journalist. Numbskull.)

That being said, I do believe liberals wouldn't much want to hear a liberal host in the vein of Hannity or Rush, that sort of single-minded, one-opinion expressed for four hours (and they obviously DON'T LIKE to hear Rush or Hannity themselves). We've already got our minds made up, dammit, we don't need to think about it anymore. :)


There's a reason why the democratic controlled congress is seeing record low approval ratings.

Not for nothin', but while Congress' approval ratings are low, they're hardly record lows. In fact, given that Congress is typically about as popular as herpes, the approval ratings are well within an average range.


It's all those things. People are getting more and more pissed with all the politicians on the left and the right because they feel more and more like none of them are actually listening to the people and I think it's going to come to a head really soon.

We've been waiting for things to come to a head since about 1796, so I wouldn't hold my breath.


So there's no way that "conservatives" who listen to these guys are just normal people like you who disagree about certain things? They're just lower than you?

(I don't listen to any of those guys, with the exception of Glenn Beck, and I do so because he's funny, and he has some things I agree with. Am I the "lowest common denominator"?)

I think by "lowest common denominator" he meant the crazy shit they do for attention, like Rush accusing Clinton of murder, or saying Michael J. Fox was faking his symptoms in a commercial.


This is pretty similar to the Pew survey I was talking about earlier though. Journalists giving money to political candidates on either side doesn't equal a bias, especially considering their editors and publishers overwhelmingly lean the other way. The other problem I noticed with the study was that all they did was look up names on donor rolls and pulled out names they recognized as journalists. Not a very scientific study since they only looked up those who contributed (less than 200 journalists out of thousands?). What the study actually says is that very few journalists actually do contribute to political candidates, and the few who do may lean to the left. Still not close to showing a bias overall.

I think it's also important to note how well-trained in objectivity journalists are. I studied journalism in college and worked in a newsroom, and not only is the importance of it hammered home from day one, but the teachers/editors were also pretty good at showing you HOW to be objective/balanced/whatever.

Also, it's fucking hard to be biased anyway- you're spending way too little time on a story that is way too complex and getting way too few words to do it- and you have to make it comprehensible for thousands (if not millions!) of people from all different walks of life.

(Aaaaaand, all of that being said, "objectivity" and "balance" aren't the goal, in and of themselves, of journalism- truth is. Objectivity and balance are merely two tried-and-true methods of getting the truth...but they're not always the only, or even the best, methods.)


I think the Fairness Doctrine served us well through various administrations - Republican and Democrat. And there were no lasting cries of big brother censorship back then. There is no reason to think it couldn't again.

Well, part of it was there WASN'T really censorship- it was just a matter of if the station let one side of a debate say something, it had to make time for the other side, too.

So everyone getting their panties in a lemon twist about censorship needs to step back- the fairness doctrine actually advocated MORE speech, not less.

And if I'm wrong about it historically, maybe that's what a NEW fairness doctrine could/should do.

Jamie Howdeshell
06-22-2007, 03:18 AM
Wow.......this scares me. I'm really starting to question your sanity. I mean seriously, let the fucking people decide for themselves what they want to listen. Let's not have the government dictate what can be aired out of "fairness".

A couple of things though. Hannity and Limbaugh are not news shows, they are the fucking equiviant of a newspaper editorial. They never call themselves a journalist. Anyone who actually thinks that they are news are fucking idiots. And also, are there people putting guns to the heads of listeners? Are they forcing them to listen to Hannity? People can decide what they want to listen to.

Like I said, some people like to talk about free speech and go on about it.....until someone from an opposing view is popular, then they want government regulation to stifle that. Don't you just love partisan hypocracy?

it's hard to take you at all seriously with all the pathetic personal attacks in your post. randy is trying to civilly and rationally discuss this subject. why don't you try to do the same?

Special Agent Bachman
06-22-2007, 03:37 AM
I'm tired of studies coming up with obvious shit. Study something mysterious for once.

Smokinblues
06-22-2007, 03:39 AM
As long as there aren't any artificial barriers keeping one side or the other from airing their point of view I don't see any reason to mandate that opinions be balanced one way or the other. It might be political content, but it's political entertainment.

Government mandated equal time for opinion based political entertainment is just silly idea any way you slice it. There's no need for it. Any radio station that wants to can air the other side if they think that's in their best interest or that's what their audience wants.

Blandy vs Terrorism
06-22-2007, 03:39 AM
I'm tired of studies coming up with obvious shit. Study something mysterious for once.

Something like wintergreen mints making sparks if you chew them in the dark. How DO they do that?

Ben Weldon
06-22-2007, 03:49 AM
Actually, if Bill's writings can be believed, he really is pretty centrist- he swings far left on social issues, right on crime and economics, and moderate-to-hawkish on foreign policy.


What social issues is he far left or evan moderate left on?

Sam Johnson
06-22-2007, 03:54 AM
This is kind of weird...in the UK the BBC has a really obvious left-wing liberal bias and there's just been a big study into that as the BBC's meant to remain impartial.

Doc Randy
06-22-2007, 07:47 AM
I'm tired of studies coming up with obvious shit.

Hmmm... I wonder if anyone has produced a serious study of this subject.

sonnylarue
06-22-2007, 07:55 AM
Nah.

Consolidation and corporatization were much bigger factors.

which happened thanks to FCC de-regulation that started in the Regan era, and the
telecommunications act from the 1990's (which had support from both sides of the aisle , including Clinton) .

bad decisions.

DaveCummings
06-22-2007, 08:19 AM
it's hard to take you at all seriously with all the pathetic personal attacks in your post. randy is trying to civilly and rationally discuss this subject. why don't you try to do the same?


Yeah, though I agree with his remarks about the fairness doctrine being obsolete now with all the avenues available for information, this guy is not helping his case by being irrational.

That and him bringing up the "liberal bias in media" I think that is an over exaggerated and overstated remarks that conservatives like to make, just as I think liberals like to do that somewhat with Fox News. I mean, if you try to look for bias, your perception is going to view it as being biased...I think.

~Dave

Brad N.
06-22-2007, 08:50 AM
Yeah, though I agree with his remarks about the fairness doctrine being obsolete now with all the avenues available for information, this guy is not helping his case by being irrational.

That and him bringing up the "liberal bias in media" I think that is an over exaggerated and overstated remarks that conservatives like to make, just as I think liberals like to do that somewhat with Fox News. I mean, if you try to look for bias, your perception is going to view it as being biased...I think.

~Dave

The difference being FOX News IS biased. They make no apologies for it. Everyone from Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes to Bill O' Reilly himself has said numerous times that they do lean to the right but claim they only do so because the rest of the media leans so far left. Murdoch started FOX News specifically to "equal the playing field" and when you realize how liberally biased the MSM isn't then their argument falls flat.

Colby
06-22-2007, 08:54 AM
What social issues is he far left or evan moderate left on?

"far left" was a bit of a stretch, and I apologize (it was late and I'm kinda stupid). But he supports civil unions, believes in global warming (And government action to stop it), and believes in affirmative action (though he thinks it should be economically based). Thus, even accounting for his rather absurd economic, crime, and foreign policy views, I think he'd be more than comfortable in the "Blue Dog" (Moderate-to-Conservative) wing of the Democratic Party.

The problem is, he demogogues against anyone who even whispers dissent from his opinions. (Plus, there's more than a little evidence that he only gives lip-service to the above positions. He's never really highlighted them on his show, for instance, so he could just be throwing them out there to bolster his non-partisan image.) He seems to especially relish going after liberals who disagree with him while just kind of ignoring the conservative end.

What I'm getting at is this: I don't think Bill's a jerk just because we have different political views; in fact, we DON'T in many cases. I think he's a jerk because "jerk" is a more polite word for "shit sandwhich".

Doc Randy
06-22-2007, 09:46 AM
What social issues is he far left or evan moderate left on?

He is all for the kinky integration of food products in the bedroom. The man loves his falafels. :twisted:

DaveCummings
06-22-2007, 10:29 AM
The difference being FOX News IS biased. They make no apologies for it. Everyone from Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes to Bill O' Reilly himself has said numerous times that they do lean to the right but claim they only do so because the rest of the media leans so far left. Murdoch started FOX News specifically to "equal the playing field" and when you realize how liberally biased the MSM isn't then their argument falls flat.

I know that they're biased. I mean, biased to the degree that some people like to exaggerate about on here. Like to the extent conservatives like to make out the "mainstream" media to be.

Then again, I think alot of the "editorial" shows on the cable news networks should come out in the beginning and say where they stand. I mean, alot of people here detest Glenn Beck, but I do like how on his TV show, he'll say straight up that he's a conservative and it's essentially an editorial show because he said the dangerous thing with people like O'Reilly and people on other networks are that they won't just say where they are politically and they don't let people know that it's just an editorial show, because there are some people who would watch it and take what they say as news, despite their obvious slant, because some people aren't that observant, or something like that.

I think I went a bit off topic. Sorry about that.

That said, alot of the talking head, editorial shows are the reason why I avoid any of the cable news channels after 6pm. When I do, I usually switch back and forth between all of them, just as if I ever do listen to talk radio (the only one I really listen to anymore is Dennis Miller, because his tendency of having really great guests like Martin Short, Dana Carvey, and David Lynch on there) I tend to go back and forth between someone like Boortz and to NPR and occasionally Air America. But that's because I like to hear different sides of the story.

~Dave

Ben Weldon
06-22-2007, 10:44 AM
This is kind of weird...in the UK the BBC has a really obvious left-wing liberal bias and there's just been a big study into that as the BBC's meant to remain impartial.


ôReality has a well-known liberal bias.


"far left" was a bit of a stretch, and I apologize (it was late and I'm kinda stupid). But he supports civil unions, believes in global warming (And government action to stop it), and believes in affirmative action (though he thinks it should be economically based). Thus, even accounting for his rather absurd economic, crime, and foreign policy views, I think he'd be more than comfortable in the "Blue Dog" (Moderate-to-Conservative) wing of the Democratic Party.

The problem is, he demogogues against anyone who even whispers dissent from his opinions. (Plus, there's more than a little evidence that he only gives lip-service to the above positions. He's never really highlighted them on his show, for instance, so he could just be throwing them out there to bolster his non-partisan image.) He seems to especially relish going after liberals who disagree with him while just kind of ignoring the conservative end.

What I'm getting at is this: I don't think Bill's a jerk just because we have different political views; in fact, we DON'T in many cases. I think he's a jerk because "jerk" is a more polite word for "shit sandwhich".

That's interesting. I knew about the lip service (or lack thereof) he gives to civil unions but I'm genuinely surprised about his stance on global warming.

Colby
06-22-2007, 10:47 AM
That's interesting. I knew about the lip service (or lack thereof) he gives to civil unions but I'm genuinely surprised about his stance on global warming.

Yeah. It almost seems like lip service too, but I'll take him at his word. Hell, it means he doesn't have the excuse that I just dislike him for his views...