Republican Riddle
I mentioned yesterday that I have come to a new realization with regards to the state of the media environment within the United States. This realization is that conservatives receive the lions share of content from organizations like ABC, CBS, MSNBC and CNN who are traditionally known as liberal news outlets. This leads me to the question:
Is politics ultimately about power? The ability to retain power within the government for yourself and your political party?
The Republicans/Conservatives seem to have done this on the radio networks according to a report published by the Center for American Progress in 2007. This report is over a year old but given the current FCC push for more deregulation, I doubt the facts of this report have changed. The main fact of the 40 page report is that through an analysis of 257 news/talk programs in the Spring of 2007, it was revealed that 91% of weekday programming is conservative and 9% is progressive:
This report may seem irrelevant because many people may be thinking how many people listen to the radio in the age of the internet? Well according to the report, Americans listened to 19 hours of radio per week on average in 2006. I myself listen to the radio roughly about 7 hours per week in Ireland and about the same when I was in America.
The report attributes these statistics in part to the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC in 1987 during the Reagan administration. This repeal was another republican move under the guise of “regulation is bad” to take control of the media that they felt was dominated by liberal content. Secondly the report mentions the deregulation efforts on the part of the FCC recently to allow big networks to snap up all the media outlets they want. This further deregulation has been spearheaded by the current chairman of the FCC appointed by none other than President Bush.
Again the majority of the American public are being screwed by conservatives and the GOP so that we only recieve one side of a story. Any conservative must admit that there are two sides to every story and to make an informed opinion you need the liberal/progressive opinion as well as the conservative opinion. According to these statistics, if you live outside of a few liberal cities, you are in deep trouble of being republican washed.
These kinds of actions make me really angry since I am a fair player however I am naive when it comes to politics. I have come to realize that the Democrats are the true party for the people as they are the one’s who sponsored the Media Ownership Act of 2007 which has been squashed at the committee stage. Anyone want to guess why the Republican’s made sure this bill was never passed? Here is a video detailing why we need to get media back into serving the public interest because Fox is just a cog in the Republican machine:
July 10 2008 09:35 pm | American Politics
July 10th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
There have been many attempts by Democrats to put on successful liberal talk shows but most of them have flopped, Crian. It is not the fault of Republicans. Anyone can run a radio show if they have the money to do so. The listeners choose whether it’s successful or not, by actually listening to it. If the ratings are low they flop, if they are high they are successful. There are several successful liberal radio talk show hosts. Alan Colmes, just to name one. If Rush Limbaugh has more listeners or if Hannity does, it’s because more people choose to listen to them. No regulation is going to change people’s listening habits.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I agree. The ‘new’ GOP, a la
Karl Rove, has taken great care to infuse gov’t with ‘right thinkers’. At http://www.informify.com/top-stories/44-us-politics/259-liberal-interns-rejected-by-justice-departments-hiring-officials we note that the Justice Dept hires based on
political belief rather than
ability…the one area where
ability used to be critical…
July 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Conservatives watch Fox and listen to talk radio because it provides a perspective not found on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS. They find Limbaugh and Hannity interesting and entertaining.
Millions have been spent ( and stolen from a charity ) trying to make liberal talk radio work. It doesn’t–in part because it’s always been driven by people who don’t understand the medium. It’s not just the point-of-view; it’s about delivering content that entertains. Public radio provides a nice liberal view; but the listenership is low. That’s why it’s heavily subsidized both at the state and federal level.
Radio stations are in the business of selling advertising, not ideology. They’ll put anything on the air that gets ratings. If a liberal talk host ever surfaces who can draw an audience, he or she will make the kind of money Limbaugh does.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Hey Gayle, I agree with part of what you are saying but I believe what the people over at the center for American Progress are saying is that the current regulatory atmoshphere doesn’t allow small groups to purchase a radio station. Conservative radio shows may flourish because more people listen to them but perhaps its due time that increased regulation helped out the little guy?
Hey BB, I read that story about the Justice department interns and the questions they were asked. In continuing to listen to the Alterman book today, he details stories about people sent over to Iraq to administer the country based on whether they believe there should have been a Florida recount or not.
Hey Gordon, I am a bit mixed on CNN etc… in terms of content after doing some research these days, there are some conservative people on CNN who do deliver conservative content but Fox is purely conservative which is why I guess so many people watch them.
Hey Gordon you are quite correct when it comes to radio but I think that is what the report hints at is that more local radio catering for local content rather than a nationally syndicated liberal talk show host.
Part of me was debating whether America is a majority conservative country but after looking at some polls, I would see there are more conservatives than liberals but a considerable chuck of America are moderates. I just don’t understand how conservative programming is so popular…
July 11th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
is politics ultimately about power? the answer is yes. why else would our federal government be set up as it is? the branches are separated so that no one man or men could gain absolute power.
Crian, you speak of being a fair man but where is the fairness in your post?
you speak of all the networks as being filled with conservative content but you say nothing to back it up. you try to back it up by citing Fox only and radio. and i don’t believe anyone would cite Fox as the typical network. and i don’t believe anyone would cite radio in regards to network bias. so, where is the fairness on your part in this post? in fact, based upon your post i see an unjust accusation towards the networks.
all you do when you do this is imply just the opposite when you do this.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Hey Griper, thanks for being the only person to answer my question but given the current state of the government, and the slim hold the Democrats have in Congress and the Senate, effectively don’t the Republican’s hold the keys to power?
My post was not exactly fair but the day I posted it I was angry and sad because of how unfairly I personally believe the liberal agenda was being treated, that was hypocritical but I apologize for not explicitly backing up my statements so I will do so now, conservative content dominates all corners of the media as stated in Eric Alterman’s audiobook entitled: “Why We’re Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America.”
Regarding the networks, I was watching the campaign trail today and they were comparing Senator McCain and his cigarette comment to Jesse Jackson and his mic comment, if CNN were a truly liberal network, they would have gone after Senator McCain.
The point I am trying to make Griper in not the best way, sorry about that is that Fox does not play fair so why should the other allegedly liberal networks.
July 11th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Crian,
“…effectively don’t the Republican’s hold the keys to power?”
not if you see our government in terms of checks and balances. power is always in the hands of the majority,thus the saying “majority rules”. thus as of now the Republicans are checking the power of the Democrats. the Democrats did the same prior to the last election when they were the minority.
of course neither party will tell it like this. both will say that the minority is obstructing things.
as for liberal or conservative spin of the networks, if you use a single incident to show that cnn is not biased then you need also say it of Fox. i think you’ll find plenty of times that Fox has not reported something in the conservative way.
funny thing about bias is that we not only see bias in others but we view things in a biased way.
in my opinion, we should all just recognize our own biases and stop degrading others for their’s.
that is why i like the wall street journal. it declares their bias and by doing so i can judge anything they write in consideration of that bias. everyone else tries to declare their lack of bias but they fail.
your accusation of Fox is proof of that. there are others that declare their bias but funny thing i noticed is that those that do are not liberal. there may be but i can’t say, can you?
so, in fairness, how do you make things fair without imposing your idea of fairness on others?
remember the Constitution doesn’t guarantee success only the opportunity for success and with opportunity failure is also are part of that promise. that’s the problem with the idea of fairness as i see you advocating.
as gayle said there has been many attempts by liberals to get their shows on radio but they failed. how is it fair to reward them for their own failures by imposing your idea of fairness on the people?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
I remember the checks and balances argument from my U.S History class back in college and that should hold true in theory but even before the Democrats gained the majority in 2006, they weren’t doing too much “checking” because the Republicans slowly deregulated the business and financial sector, screwed the EPA,CPSC out of funding that they need etc…
You are right that we should recognoise our biases and I was raised in Mass. hence I view the world out of a liberal eye piece and you are right about not degrading other people for their views at the same time each side is attempting to convince the other who is right and who is wrong, if liberals stopped fighting conservatives, they would really own the place and vice versa
Using that one incident was inadequate, no doubt but this realization about the media only hit me quite recently hence I have not been keeping count but I plan to do so from now on. I cancelled Fox here in Ireland so I don’t have the pleasure of their programming anymore.
My argument with regards to the failure of the liberal system is that the deregulated system is stacked against them, I will grant you that there is no universal concept of fair but you might perhaps grant me the thought that the current state of information on the radio does not deliver both sides of a story?
July 11th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
“you speak of all the networks as being filled with conservative content but you say nothing to back it up.” How about every single large media
jumping on the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq for the wrong reasons…gee, even a dumb old
ex chemical officer like me could see the phoniness of the
WMD evidence..where were our
‘journalists’? Spounting the
party line….
July 12th, 2008 at 12:48 am
“you might perhaps grant me the thought that the current state of information on the radio does not deliver both sides of a story?”
why must it present both sides if the people are unwilling to listen to one side or the other?
ratings determine who succeeds not ideology. you can’t force people to listen to ideology, they have to want to.
Rush is a success because he can entertain not because he is a conservative. he admits this. i can’t prove it but in my mind he would be a success if he had been a liberal too. he’s good at what he does. and what he does is entertain. and think of this, he worked at making himself a success. he didn’t become a success overnight.
that was the biggest problem with liberal shows. they started out and expected to be an overnight success. it doesn’t work that way.
Rush spent years building up his ratings. Rush started out small and grew. how many liberal shows did that?
the liberal shows started out big trying to compete with Rush and failed out of the arrogance that people would support them automatically. it doesn’t happen that way over here. maybe it does over there in Europe but not here.
Europe has a very different culture over there than we do here. and you are as biased in regards to your culture as i am mine.
your culture is such that it took to socialistic ways easier than we do. we may end up being as socialistic as Europe is in time but it will be a war hard fought. Hillary found that out in Bill’s first term when she came out with her Health plan.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:26 am
bb,
and where were the people on this issue? and where was the world gov’ts on this issue at the time? they all had the same opinion on wmd’s.
so, bb, while you may have seen the phoniness of it back then, and i don’t doubt your word, the people of this nation and that includes Congress also along with the world opinion of it was against you at the time, my friend.
and one more thing, bb, if you saw the phoniness of it that means that Bush did not mislead anyone as he was accused of.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Hey Griper
Ratings do determine success but success is not the point of news radio, it is to inform not distort. People should be willing to listen to both sides of a story which is why I subscribed to Fox at one point but ditched it in favor of NASN so I could watch baseball in Ireland.
I have listened to Mr. Limbaugh once and he does provide an entertainment of sorts but it is filled with racist/xenophobic remarks. I doubt he could have been a success as a liberal unless he cut out a lot of those incendiary statements. Conservatives often degrade the people at Code Pink and the ACLU for their actions yet somehow Mr. Limbaugh still remains on air after all his incidents…
Europe is quite different but the culture is no better than that of America, the only difference is that the majority of the people here are liberal as are most of the media. People took to socialistic ways because after WWII, the governments had to step up an take care of the people. Look at the EU at the moment, countries like Ireland and Great Britain run on a good mix of socialism and capitalism, and both these countries have a strong economy even in a global recession.
Would it be so bad for America? I really don’t think so, there is this fear of socialism in the U.S so much so that every measure that borders on a socialistic tendency is demonized when it could actually help the people that need to be helped.
July 12th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Crian,
“Ratings do determine success but success is not the point of news radio, it is to inform not distort. People should be willing to listen to both sides of a story”
what people should be willing to do and what they are willing to do are two separate things. ratings declare what they are willing to do. this is called preference.
“new radio” what news radio? radio now days is just an entertainment media. if you are referring to the talk shows, that’s not news that’s entertainment.
as for his use of derogatory names, don’t let your bias confuse you. liberals are just as good at it. look at all the derogatory terms used on Bush by Liberals. even obama accused hillary of racism. and hillary accused obama of sexism.
and nine times out of ten the accusation is to gain the political upper hand. and one type of derogatory term is no worse than any other type if it is based upon perception instead of reality.
there is no fear of socialism here. it is called contempt. and your own argument tells you why;
” that every measure that borders on a socialistic tendency is demonized when it could actually help the people that need to be helped.”
yes it may help some but by forcing it on others that don’t need it or want it? is that freedom? i was always under the impression that freedom was the right to choose.
how does socialism promote freedom of choice when people are not allowed the choice but forced to accept the choices of others?
remember, freedom of choice means the freedom to make bad choices also and the need to accept the consequences of those bad choices. those are the ones socialism helps mostly.
it prevents people from accepting the consequences of his poor chioices. and one more thing, what about those that socialism hurts? how does it help them? there is the problem with socialists is the fact they never take into consideration those that socialism hurts.
socialism, in theory, is far different than socialism, in practice, is.
in theory, it is a bottom up form of economy but, in practice, it is a top down form of economy just like Capitalism is but the difference being who is at the top, it isn’t the people and it isn’t business owners.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Hey Griper, you are right that ratings to declare what people want to do rather than what they should do, I guess I am the eternal optimist when it comes to human nature, I hope for the best from myself as well as other people but sometimes that hope falls far from reality.
When I refer to News Radio, I mean NPR or WGBH, as for derrogtorary examples, you can hardly call what liberals call President Bush the best example, he deserves it after all for his leadership of the United States.
I can’t remember the specific examples when it comes to Mr. Limbaugh however there was the famous comment he made to a black caller about “take that bone out of your nose…” People should be able to say pretty much anything on talk radio but racist comments don’t belong in mainstream.
In my previous comment, it was never my attempt to advocate socialism as the perfect form of government. I could never live in a socialist country but there are principles of socialism that can help people like Universal Healthcare.
Numerous industrialized nations in the West are participants in the system yet the United States refused to pick up the tab because of various reasons, Why not learn from all these nations and create the best system of universal healthcare out there? Ireland, the U.K, and France are still democracies yet they work with socialist principles like greater rights to the employee rather than the employer.
I am far from the perfect person to be talking about this but I make these arguments about healthcare, socialism based on my experiences in Ireland over the last 2 years and my best friends living in the U.S who don’t have time to comment about the state of the media in America let alone the labor system.
Thanks for the arguments Griper, it is a very rare occasion that I get to talk about these sorts of things over here or with any of my liberal friends in Mass.
July 13th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Crian,
“you can hardly call what liberals call President Bush the best example, he deserves it after all for his leadership of the United States.”
that is your political bias talking. its a “do as i say not as i do” type of argument. and this is especially true here because i used two examples not just one. and the second one had nothing to do with Bush but still was an example of my accusation. your rebuttal in this situation is based strictly on how you feel Bush should have acted. and that is another issue that can be debated. the fact remains that liberals are just as glib as anyone else in the use of derogatory terms.
and if you feel it is alright to use derogatory terms for someone because you feel he deserves it then give that same right to Rush. he probably felt that caller deserved it too. so, both my examples stand.
“Why not learn from all these nations and create the best system of universal healthcare out there?”
did you ever consider the possibility that we already have and have considered the negatives of that system less appealing than the negatives of ours?
it is the system itself we reject and, for me, the reasons were stated in my previous comment. and that is just a very short list.
we both could sit here and enumerate the shortcomings of the other’s system but one thing, a free enterprise system abides by the law of nature while socialism abides by the law of man and when they clash the laws of nature will always win. that is true regardless whether a nation is completely socialized or just partially. man cannot regulate the behavior of nature but nature will regulate the behavior of man.
” I could never live in a socialist country but there are principles of socialism that can help people like Universal Healthcare.”
this you’ll have to prove to me.
how does it help those it hurts?
how does it promote freedom of choice?
how does it help those who do not need or want it?
how does it give people greater power to regulate their government instead of giving government greater power to regulate the lives of the people?
how does it promote the idea that people must make their own decisions in life and suffer the consequences of the bad ones not just benefit from the good decisions?
how is it treating people like adults rather than like children who are dependent upon someone to make decisions?
helping people is a noble idea. but imposing that help on others is not. when that happens you help nobody. help must be wanted not just needed as you see need.
remember this, when an individual makes a bad decision only he must suffer the consequences of failure. but when that individual is making a government decision, a bad decision results in the failure for the whole society.
July 13th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Hey Griper
I have never considered that people have already thought about the potential negatives of a national healthcare system but even if they have, would not these contemplations be biased by various business and ideological ties? The same could be said for Democrats of course but then it leads to the will of the people where I will leave this argument until a concise national poll is done of people in all states with regards to national healthcare.
Helping people is noble but you are quite right that people who do not want help should be given that choice. I will state at this juncture that it is every intention of mine to prove to you that certain principles wihtin the socialism can be implemented within a democratic and free society for the benefit of said society.
Being that it is Sunday and finally sunny in rainy Ireland, I will table this proof for another day and another post
July 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
The rampant rightist bias of the corporate media should shock no one given who owns them and who owns their advertisers. Media consolidation has removed competitive pressures that once forced the corporate news outlets to behave more professionally.
Anyone who wants to become better informed on bias on all networks, not just Faux News, should explore the website of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (www.fair.org).
July 14th, 2008 at 3:01 am
Crian
i had to smile when i read your last comment. with that comment you painted yourself into a corner that you can’t get out, my friend.
“…would not these contemplations be biased by various business and ideological ties?”
ok i’ll allow that neither should be a determinate for the sake of this discussion.
” … certain principles wihtin the socialism can be implemented within a democratic and free society for the benefit of said society.
ok, this will be fun to see. but remember Crian, it must be proven without revealing ideological bias and it must be presented in such a way that is a socialistic principle as opposed to a free enterprise principle.
July 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I think the Sun scorched my brain a bit when I was writing that yesterday but it is still my intention before the end of July to get back to you on this issue,Griper with regards to proving my statement in post format if not an email.
Hey Lib, you know I won’t disagree with you and thank you for providing the FAIR link since I had totally forgotten about them in my research on this topic.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Crian,
proving it is an impossibility Crian. trying to prove socialistics principles are good without revealing bias can’t be done because principles are what makes up ideology.
the most that can be shown is a bipartisanship agreement and that is different from lack of bias.
so, even before you write a post on this matter i’ll call foul because of bias.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
I see your point Griper, there is no way to demonstrate without proving my bias, that is indeed a conundrum. I would still like to attempt it though in a bipartisan way at least.
July 15th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
the point is, Crian, i just exposed one of the fallacies of liberalism. they expect a non-biased argument to be used against them but can’t get away from presenting one themselves as you have demonstrated. its a “do as i say but not as i do” form of ideology.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I see your point Griper, that it is impossible for both sides to present non-biased arguments without interjecting political ideology but then how do we make progress on the political front without discussion?