The Drudge headline:

SENATOR CLAIMS BOXER/CLINTON CONSPIRING TO BRING DOWN TALKRADIO; WANT 'LEGISLATIVE FIX'

The story isn't posted yet, and I don't know which Senator has made the accusation.

The question I raise is, no matter what your political persuasion is, do you want to have any politician or any political party attempting to make free speech unlawful?

Both sides tend to dish out wild headlines that usually end up being way out of context. I'd like to see the actual quotes before making a judgement here. However, Talkradio in one form has already been "brought down", and it had nothing to do with politicians. Can anyone say, "Air America"?

The airwaves are the public's property, and they are regulated by the US government's FCC. As it is now, you have to be wealthy to be able to operate a radio station and/or purchase a license. And today, most talk radio broadcast over the public's airwaves is right-wing talk that supports the idealogy of the people who can afford to operate a radio station in the first place (e.g. support for tax cuts for the wealthy). I'd say the current system is hardly "free speech." Why should someone with wealthy have a greater right to own a radio station than, say, me? I can't broadcast my personal political views to millions of people, but if you are a billionare, you can lease the public airwaves and hire talk show hosts to parrot your views to the public. Is that "free speech?"

The Fairness Doctrine as you know was the early attempt to balance the political use of the airwaves. You could have as much right-wing talk on a station as you desired as long as the station provided equal time for opposing points of view. That sure seems a lot closer to free speech than what we have today.

Andrew

Andrew, what you're missing is that the masses just don't want to listen to all viewpoints. Air America is a prime example.

Why can the nation support multiple conservative talk programs and stations, but supports very few liberal viewpoint programs or stations.

So, what you're proposing, and Queen Hillary is proposing, is that since few people want to listen to the liberal viewpoint, stations should be forced to cram it down their throats. What's wrong with that picture?

The rich man, poor man scenario holds no water. Station operators have one goal, that's making money. If the public listened to liberal radio, believe me, that's what they would program.

There's also a deeper message here. Think about this. A Presidential candidate who proposes socialized medicine and wants to force stations to program her political viewpoint.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. And, you might not like it.

It was U.S. Senator James Inhofe who overheard Queen Hillary and Barbara Boxer talking.

Deane writes:
Andrew, what you're missing is that the masses just don't want to listen to all viewpoints. Air America is a prime example.

Air America is a terrible example. They were a poorly-run company from the get-go and came about in part because of the difficulty in funding liberal talk in other ways. Ed Schultz is an example of a profitable non-conservative talk show. Schultz could make a lot more money if more stations would carry his show.

Why can the nation support multiple conservative talk programs and stations, but supports very few liberal viewpoint programs or stations.

Conservative talk shows influence public opinion - it's not just entertainment. It's unfair that one political viewpoint gets so much greater airtime over the public airwaves than others. I'm not saying I think the Fairness Doctrine was a great idea (or that I support whatever Hillary might be proposing), only that today's radio business environment is far from "free speech."

As for universal health care (or "socialized medicine" as you call it), I'm desperately for it. Since you are older, you won't have to worry about health care and presumably have good insurance in addition to Medicare. But the health care environment for the rest of us is bad and getting worse. At the current rate of increase in my health care premiums (something like 10% a year), not counting the increase I get for aging into a higher priced group, I'm going to have a difficult time affording any sort of decent health care coverage long before I hit Medicare age - and Medicare will probably be cut back by then anyway. We're already looking at about 50 million Americans with no health care coverage - far too high - and that's only going to continue to rise the way things are going.

Andrew

It's a classic leftist move.

They can't compete in the arena of ideas, so they attempt to squelch views other than their own with their so-called fairness doctrine.

Herb

Help me understand how a doctrine that requires balanced coverage of all positions on an issue "squelches" views.

Greetings from Copenhagen, Denmark.

It's interesting to read about socialized medicine while visiting a country who has it. As a matter of fact a story in this mornings Copenhagen Post talked about how 74 percent of Danes don't want tax cuts in order to keep their medical, police, fire and education in tact. Very different perspective and refreshing.

The conservative party here wants tax cuts but is being out voted to keep what is working. For sure you do get taxed heavily here and the Danes know it. All they ask for and are getting is high quality services for their health care and other programs. Certainly not perfect but obviously it's doing a good job when 3/4 of those polled want to keep the taxes high.

Now on topic; Even though there may be way too much conservative talk for my money, I do agree with Deane that radio is about making money. Thankfully I have the ultimate control and choose not to listen to conservative dribble.

Thought I'd chirp in from 4500 miles away.

"...a doctrine that requires balanced coverage..."

Oh, it sounds fine enough. But who decides what is balanced? And are you going to include only two sides? How about the Nader people? The John Birchers? You get the drift.

Herbert Milhous

Here's a truly scary thought:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html

And don't think it wouldn't apply to NPR, Pacifica Radio and KBOO, either. If Republicans gain control, you guys want John Ashcroft defining what you can hear?

Herb

By Katy Bachman, Mediaweek

SOURCE: Mediaweek

Despite inroads made by Air America Radio and other progressive talk programming, talk radio remains a conservative bastion, at least among the biggest radio owners. That was the unsurprising conclusion of a new report jointly released Thursday (June 21) by the Center for American Progress and Free Press, which examined the programming for 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial owners: Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel Broadcasting, Cumulus Media and Salem Communications. (The report did not include Air America radio stations or non-commercial radio stations.)

“Group owners, those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market, were statistically more likely to air conservative talk,” the report said.

The report, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” found that 91% of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative. Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk was broadcast, compared to 254 hours of progressive talk. A separate analysis of talk programming in the top 10 radio markets found that 76% of the news/talk programming is conservative, with the exception of New York and Chicago where programming was more balanced.

The report blamed the imbalance on lack of regulation, the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to devote equal airtime to contrasting views, and to “simple consumer demand.”

“These results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of 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,” the report concluded.

Several solutions were suggested to reverse the trend including rolling back national radio ownership limits to not exceed 5 percent of the number of AM and FM stations, and restricting local ownership to no more than 10% of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.

>>>"“These results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of 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,” the report concluded."

The FCC beat this drum to death for years and it never worked.

>>>"Several solutions were suggested to reverse the trend including rolling back national radio ownership limits to not exceed 5 percent of the number of AM and FM stations, and restricting local ownership to no more than 10% of the total commercial radio stations in a given market."

A good idea for other reasons, but it won't change the programming. That's determined by what people want to tune in for.

Boxer is denying the conversation took place.

Who to believe?

"A good idea for other reasons, but it won't change the programming. That's determined by what people want to tune in for."

True, but the fact of the matter is that the sponsors drive the bus. Just ask Don Imus.

Chances are, conservative talk radio has more traction than Air America because of whom they are targeting. Rightie Radio goes after those rich middle-aged suits with lots of discretionary income ... Air America goes after the less well-off, the disenfranchised who don't have the money as much. The content is fine, and lots of people here anyways tune in ... doesn't mean it makes the revenue.

Again, Air America isn't a great example because they were a poorly-run company from the beginning. Ed Schultz may be a better example because his left-leaning talk show is making money. Schultz believes he could make a whole lot more money (more listeners) if more conservative-owned talk networks would put him on the air. If he's right, that would fly in face the argument that "people don't want to listen to liberal talk."

Andrew

Deane said:
"It was U.S. Senator James Inhofe who overheard Queen Hillary and Barbara Boxer talking."

Radioblogman said:
"Boxer is denying the conversation took place.

Who to believe?"

I think we could put this to rest:
http://www.counterpunch.org/jackson05122004.html