PDA

View Full Version : Rick Lowry: Radio "imbalance" is talent


Cochise
06-27-2007, 10:15 AM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/radio_imbalance_is_in_the_talent_opedcolumnists_rich_lowry.htm

RADIO 'IMBALANCE' IS IN THE TALENT

June 26, 2007 -- Rush Limbaugh, the conservative talk-radio pioneer, has been called many nasty things before, but never a "structural imbalance." That's the fancy term a liberal think tank uses to characterize his success - and to dress up its proposal for counteracting that success through new government regulation.

The report of the Center for American Progress on "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" marks the latest phase in liberaldom's grappling with conservative talk radio. First came the attempts to create a liberal Limbaugh - Mario Cuomo, Jim Hightower, et al. - that fell flat. Then an entire left-wing network, Air America, was founded, and foundered. So there's only one option left - if you can't beat them, and you won't join them, you can agitate for government to regulate them.

The report looks at a slice of 257 talk stations and concludes that more than 90 percent of total weekday talk programming is conservative. The supposed reason for this is, essentially, that media companies are conspiring to shove conservative radio down the throats of listeners in a way they couldn't if, among other things, government required broadcasters "to regularly show that they are operating on behalf of the public interest."

This is a pinched view of radio. There are upward of 2,000 U.S. talk stations that deal with news and issues, according to Michael Harrison of Talkers magazine, and they encompass all sorts of formats from National Public Radio to urban radio to shock jocks, none of which are dominated by right wingers. Conservative talk radio is a vibrant niche within that market, but there are many other places to go for news and opinion.

What is hard to find are liberal replicas of Rush Limbaugh, and that is due to the deepest structural imbalance of all - talent. Limbaugh and other top conservative talkers are silver-tongued, informative and - importantly - entertaining. These are qualities that can't be conjured out of nowhere, and designated liberal-radio saviors have tended not to have the requisite talent "on loan from God" (as Limbaugh puts it).

There have been conservative failures at talk radio for the same reason. Without the right mix of substance and entertainment, a host will fail to get ratings, and with that, be yanked from the air. "Ratings" is a word that appears only once in passing in the Center for American Progress report, because then it would have to acknowledge that conservative radio is successful exactly because it gets listeners.

Broadcasters go where the money is. If a liberal could draw the kind of listeners - and hence the kind of advertising dollars - as Limbaugh, he too would be on more than 600 stations. This is why Spanish-language radio is such a growth commodity. Not because broadcasters have an agenda to Hispanicize America, or because there's a structural imbalance that favors Spanish-language over German- or French-language programming, but because there's an audience for it.

The Center for American Progress wants to short-circuit the market. Having bureaucrats determine whether radio stations are serving the public interest is inherently dangerous. There are times - like now, in the debate about the immigration bill - when Democrats and Republicans in Washington will agree that conservative talk radio isn't serving the public interest because it brings to the table sentiment that the establishment prefers to ignore.

The report avoids directly calling for a renewal of the constitutionally dubious Fairness Doctrine that mandated equal time for conservative and liberal opinions, although some Democratic lawmakers aren't so circumspect. After five years of opposing most assertions of government power to fight terrorism, these liberals are ready to wield it to fight conservative talk radio. After maintaining that the First Amendment protects nude dancing, they are ready to argue that it doesn't quite apply to people broadcasting conservative views over the airwaves.

In our toxic contemporary politics, it's a sign of success if you drive your opponents batty. Rush Limbaugh might be a structural imbalance, but his critics appear simply imbalanced.

comments.lowry@nationalreview.com

patteeu
06-27-2007, 11:31 AM
When the fairness doctrine hits, are stations that carry the Dave Ramsey show going to have to carry a show with a host that encourages irresponsible credit card usage and living beyond your means for balance?

pikesome
06-27-2007, 11:40 AM
As if we need proof that politicians are **** ing manipulative bastards. I can't see how anyone could support anything like this in this country. It'd be nice if the "Fairness Doctrine" meant "quit screwing with things you have no business screwing with and leave us alone".

Cochise
06-27-2007, 12:18 PM
...there's only one option left - if you can't beat them, and you won't join them, you can agitate for government to regulate them.


The marketplace of ideas is great until their idea doesn't sell, and then it's time for government to regulate. In this case, the problem being free speech on the radio.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 12:22 PM
The FD is BS! :BS:

So what if a station is conservative or NeoConservative.
So long as there are other outlets that aren't then we have various povs.

Cochise
06-27-2007, 12:30 PM
The FD is BS! :BS:

So what if a station is conservative or NeoConservative.
So long as there are other outlets that aren't then we have various povs.

Why would that matter?

You're playing right into their hands. That implies that there is some kind of entitlement to a media outlet that you agree with. That's poppycock.

You know, when you hear liberals argue against the presentation in schools of alternative ideas to evolution, you often hear them sarcastically demand equal time for the flying spaghetti monster. If they devote equal time to one alternative point of view they'll have to devote it to all, which is judged to be ridiculous, even for the second-place idea.

Well, why is radio any different? If the government-funded schools aren't to be compelled to be inclusive, then why would private radio enterprises be forced by the government to do it?

noa
06-27-2007, 12:38 PM
I really don't think there's any danger of the Fairness Doctrine returning, but that's JMO.

Its a silly idea and libs just come across as whiney children if they support this. Let the market do its work...

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 12:41 PM
Why would that matter?

You're playing right into their hands. That implies that there is some kind of entitlement to a media outlet that you agree with. That's poppycock.

I know you took it that way, but it really wasn't my point. I don't see media outlet's as entitlements anyways. I think all airwaves should be sold off to private interests. My only point was if Fox is NC and the rest are liberal, which I agree with so what? The other pov of view can be found elsewhere.

PunkinDrublic
06-27-2007, 12:55 PM
Politically I can see why people on the left would want more successful liberal talk shows. It is an effective propaganda tool and has been for the wacko right. Political talk radio is effective at putting out distorted and half truths to people who don't follow complicated issues. Basically they prey on the uninformed and angry. Deep down I think Rush and Hannity are very aware of how stupid their audience is. Every time I've tuned into Hannity or Rush I'm amazed at the complete lack of critical thinking skills the callers have.

pikesome
06-27-2007, 01:00 PM
Politically I can see why people on the left would want more successful liberal talk shows. It is an effective propaganda tool and has been for the wacko right. Political talk radio is effective at putting out distorted and half truths to people who don't follow complicated issues. Basically they prey on the uninformed and angry. Deep down I think Rush and Hannity are very aware of how stupid their audience is. Every time I've tuned into Hannity or Rush I'm amazed at the complete lack of critical thinking skills the callers have.

There's also the "Internet Forum Effect". Only the people who care strongly enough to bother call in. Of course they are either Dittoheads or people who strongly disagree. For every IQ challenged Rush listener there's probably a large number of less vehement and more thoughtful people tuned in. I hope so, even when I agree with Rush I find myself unwilling to listen to his crap.

Pitt Gorilla
06-27-2007, 01:09 PM
I think a large part of it is talent. Rush, Hannity, and Scarborough are very good at what they do. I think another part of the equation is audience. The liberals I know would rather listen to music than someone whining about politics.

PunkinDrublic
06-27-2007, 01:18 PM
I think a large part of it is talent. Rush, Hannity, and Scarborough are very good at what they do. I think another part of the equation is audience. The liberals I know would rather listen to music than someone whining about politics.

People in general would rather listen to music or sports talk. Political talk in general has a very small audience compared to music stations. I could never figure out why someone would want to listen to the political rantings of a drug addict and a lunatic on the way home after putting up with a hard days work at the office. I would rather blow off steam by blasting my own music.

Cochise
06-27-2007, 01:18 PM
There's also the "Internet Forum Effect". Only the people who care strongly enough to bother call in. Of course they are either Dittoheads or people who strongly disagree. For every IQ challenged Rush listener there's probably a large number of less vehement and more thoughtful people tuned in. I hope so, even when I agree with Rush I find myself unwilling to listen to his crap.

Maybe liberals, in par, are less likely to call a radio station. Maybe they generally listen to less radio. Maybe they are more apt to listen to music stations. Maybe they spend less time in the car typically, have jobs that don't allow them to listen to the radio, don't have jobs at all, whatever. There are tons of possible reasons why that group just doesn't listen to talk radio in as great of numbers as conservatives do. It doesn't mean there is something here that the government needs to engulf.

By the way, I'm assuming that John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, and others have never heard of NPR, because it makes me wretch to listen to. Probably right up their alley.

I don't think this should be a partisan issue. The government censoring the viewpoint of commentators on a private radio station is straight out of Hugo Chavez' playbook.

chagrin
06-27-2007, 01:20 PM
First came the attempts to create a liberal Limbaugh - Mario Cuomo, Jim Hightower, et al. - that fell flat. Then an entire left-wing network, Air America, was founded, and foundered. So there's only one option left - if you can't beat them, and you won't join them, you can agitate for government to regulate them.



LMAO

So to paraphrase meme "If you can't beat 'em ban 'em."

She should change that to her new sig, actually I think I will.

Cochise
06-27-2007, 01:23 PM
"If you can't beat 'em, ban 'em."


Exactly

Baby Lee
06-27-2007, 05:48 PM
Help me catch up, is this Fairness Doctrine a convoluted attempt to revive that Fox 'answer' to The Daily Show?

Libs are as good at talk radio as Cons are at sitcoms and Lifetime network dramas.

ROFL ROFL

|Zach|
06-27-2007, 10:21 PM
Terrible idea...hopefully it dies soon.

Kind of turning the topic though...I feel pretty surprised NPR gets such a bad wrap. They do a lot of quality reporting.

jAZ
06-27-2007, 11:14 PM
Rupert Murdoch is really pushing this topic.

I heard a Fox News Radio "news" report on this.

As usual, they ended the "news" report by telling their listeners that it was a bad idea.

ChiefaRoo
06-27-2007, 11:21 PM
Politically I can see why people on the left would want more successful liberal talk shows. It is an effective propaganda tool and has been for the wacko right. Political talk radio is effective at putting out distorted and half truths to people who don't follow complicated issues. Basically they prey on the uninformed and angry. Deep down I think Rush and Hannity are very aware of how stupid their audience is. Every time I've tuned into Hannity or Rush I'm amazed at the complete lack of critical thinking skills the callers have.

What a stupid thing to say. There have been plenty of liberal talk show hosts and they don't draw the same audience because people don't believe in the message and there is no entertainment value. The people who listen to talk radio like Limbaugh and Hannity are smarter than the average person watching Katie Couric or that idiot Sportscaster turned a-hole Keith Olbermann.

ChiefaRoo
06-27-2007, 11:28 PM
I'm all for the fairness doctrine because I want to see equal time for Conservatives in

1) The New York Times
2) NBC
3) CBS
4) ABC
5) MSNBC
6) CNN
7) LA Times
8) Washington Post
9) Atlanta Journal Constitution

I'd love to see Limbaugh and Hannity writing mandatory for the NY Times.

What a fooking joke these Libs are. Freedom of speech and the marketplace indeed.

|Zach|
06-27-2007, 11:34 PM
The people who listen to talk radio like Limbaugh and Hannity are smarter than the average person watching Katie Couric or that idiot Sportscaster turned a-hole Keith Olbermann.
I would ask you to prove that if I thought for a second you could. You either won't or the source will be hilarious.

ChiefaRoo
06-27-2007, 11:51 PM
I would ask you to prove that if I thought for a second you could. You either won't or the source will be hilarious.


Simple observation. As a general rule Conservatives are ruled by reason and logic wheras Libs are ruled by emotion and "what makes me feel good right now" mentality. Let me revise and extend my remarks. Perhaps Libs aren't natively less intelligent but they are less well thought out in their political views in general and despite their talk about being for the little guy they are always the ones who seem to want to stifle debate whether it's via the fairness doctrine, compulsory union membership and political intolerance on University Campii.

Right now there is a tectonic shift in viewership as the The rise of conservative radio and FOX News have shown while Network (liberal) news has been losing viewers for years.

By the way Zach your just a dumbass kid going to school. You really shouldn't even pretend to understand the world until your at least in your 30's. Now back to English 102 and the keg for you.

Logical
06-27-2007, 11:54 PM
People in general would rather listen to music or sports talk. Political talk in general has a very small audience compared to music stations. I could never figure out why someone would want to listen to the political rantings of a drug addict and a lunatic on the way home after putting up with a hard days work at the office. I would rather blow off steam by blasting my own music.

It isn't really a small audience but it really is the frightened audience. Conservative talk radio plays to fearful America.

ChiefaRoo
06-27-2007, 11:55 PM
It isn't really a small audience but it really is the frightened audience. Conservative talk radio plays to fearful America.


Here goes the neighborhood Logical and his half witticisms have arrived. Like most goofy libs he believes the world could all just get along if the USA would just buy the world a coke.

|Zach|
06-27-2007, 11:57 PM
Simple observation. As a general rule Conservatives are ruled by reason and logic wheras Libs are ruled by emotion and "what makes me feel good right now" mentality. Let me revise and extend my remarks. Perhaps Libs aren't natively less intelligent but they are less well thought out in their political views in general and despite their talk about being for the little guy they are always the ones who seem to want to stifle debate whether it's via the fairness doctrine, compulsory union membership and political intolerance on University Campii.

Right now there is a tectonic shift in viewership as the The rise of conservative radio and FOX News have shown while Network (liberal) news has been losing viewers for years.

By the way Zach your just a dumbass kid going to school. You really shouldn't even pretend to understand the world until your at least in your 30's. Now back to English 102 and the keg for you.
I can't wait for the day you back up a single word of the garbage you spew with real facts.

You can't do it.

You are all show and no substance.

Again, can you prove what you said below? If not just say no. Might as well just be honest.

ChiefaRoo
06-27-2007, 11:59 PM
I can't wait for the day you back up a single word of the garbage you spew with real facts.

You can't do it.

You are all show and no substance.

Again, can you prove what you said below? If not just say no. Might as well just be honest.


Grow up kid, get your education, get kicked in the balls in the real world for awhile and get back to me. Either you'll be a real world pragmatic conservative or you'll turn into some kind of in denial lib who gets by by not paying attention to WTF is going on in the great big world.

|Zach|
06-28-2007, 12:01 AM
Grow up kid, get your education, get kicked in the balls in the real world for awhile and get back to me. Either you'll be a real world pragmatic conservative or you'll turn into some kind of in denial lib who gets by by not paying attention to WTF is going on in the great big world.
If you can't back up your own your words than just say so.

I am not making it hard. All I am asking you to do is prove the garbage you spew. Seems like the easiest way to shut me up is to come with some facts.

Making this fantasy of who I am and how stupid you think I am only makes you look more foolish.

Drop your dog and pony show.

Just say you can't back up your talk and we can let this drop. Sound like a plan?

Logical
06-28-2007, 12:02 AM
Here goes the neighborhood Logical and his half witticisms have arrived.Anyone who has listened to Sean Hannity or Michael Savage, can see them playing to the fear audience. They are amusing though to a limited degree.

Logical
06-28-2007, 12:05 AM
Chiefaroo
Yes well you tend to show your ass, as you have yet to learn that young people can easily be as smart as older people.

|Zach|
06-28-2007, 12:06 AM
I bet he is googling frantically looking for a crutch. I love it.

ChiefaRoo
06-28-2007, 12:06 AM
Anyone who has listened to Sean Hannity or Michael Savage, can see them playing to the fear audience. They are amusing though to a limited degree.

Michael Savage isn't a conservative he's a nut. Hannity is ok.

Logical
06-28-2007, 12:09 AM
Michael Savage isn't a conservative he's a nut. Hannity is ok.

Well we definitely agree on one thing Savage is a nut.

ClevelandBronco
06-28-2007, 12:10 AM
I'm already writing a bunch of rap lyrics that glorify turning in criminals, supporting law enforcement, and treating women respectfully.

Once the Fairness Doctrine takes effect, I'm going to be so damn wealthy you'll all be sizzlin mah dizzle fo' shizzle.

And that's the truth, Ruth.

ClevelandBronco
06-28-2007, 12:12 AM
Can't wait until those alternative outlets have to put Christian hits on their playlists.

Logical
06-28-2007, 12:17 AM
I'm already writing a bunch of rap lyrics that glorify turning in criminals, supporting law enforcement, and treating women respectfully.

Once the Fairness Doctrine takes effect, I'm going to be so damn wealthy you'll all be sizzlin mah dizzle fo' shizzle.

And that's the truth, Ruth.

Yo all wil b da big dog then.:p

|Zach|
06-28-2007, 12:18 AM
So, Chiefaroo just takes his ball and goes home. Can't back up his own fluff. I can't believe I was even able to have a conversation with the guy...being such an idiot and not being 30 yet.

Oh well...at least I can own my own words.

Lzen
06-28-2007, 09:42 AM
I can't wait for the day you back up a single word of the garbage you spew with real facts.

You can't do it.

You are all show and no substance.

Again, can you prove what you said below? If not just say no. Might as well just be honest.

Why don't Logical and Punkindrublic have to back up their comments?

Lzen
06-28-2007, 09:44 AM
Chiefaroo
Yes well you tend to show your ass, as you have yet to learn that young people can easily be as smart as older people.

Just a note: Intelligence is not the same as wisdom.

Cochise
06-28-2007, 09:50 AM
Well, it was nice to hear a universal opinion from the board against it, before TomARoo showed up with the trapdoor on his pajamas falling open.

Jenson71
06-28-2007, 10:01 AM
Pretty horrible idea. My grandpa and I like to listen to Lauren Graham during breakfast and Rush during lunch. They do have talent. Big egos, and sometimes a really bad idea (I remember last week Rush said it was impossible for humans to hurt the environment).

Funny thing is, my grandpa is a hard core democrat. He just likes to listen to Rush. I wouldn't be suprised if more democrats just listen to Rush to either 1. challenge their ideas or 2. laugh at him.

Cochise
06-28-2007, 10:37 AM
Pretty horrible idea. My grandpa and I like to listen to Lauren Graham during breakfast and Rush during lunch. They do have talent. Big egos, and sometimes a really bad idea (I remember last week Rush said it was impossible for humans to hurt the environment).

Funny thing is, my grandpa is a hard core democrat. He just likes to listen to Rush. I wouldn't be suprised if more democrats just listen to Rush to either 1. challenge their ideas or 2. laugh at him.

He's entertaining. I don't get a chance to listen regularly, but he's entertaining.

The thing with his show is that when you hear him say something, often it's an 'in' joke that you would have to know to really understand. I heard him last week say he was "running the country". He didn't mean he was really directing policy, of course, he was ridiculing Trent Lott saying that talk radio was running the country.

I'm not sure about this, but I think that you are probably a few years younger than me, and probably grew up with the notion of global warming as an unquestionable in schools. Am I right about that?

Maybe for you, or someone in their early 20s or so, it seems ridiculous for anyone to question the idea, global warming is an untouchable and even suggesting that it's worth debating the information available is a cardinal sin. It's like if you would have wanted to have a sincere debate about the benefits and detriments of communism during the red scare. But everyone from every generation before young people today was not indoctrinated from an early age on that topic, and thus wants to hear evidence or is otherwise not as easily convinced that it's man's fault. Many people think it's cyclical or something else.

I just found it humorous that in a thread about the fairness doctrine, which threatens to stifle debate, you acted like debating this issue was ridiculous and without merit.

Jenson71
06-28-2007, 11:07 AM
He said he was running the country today, too.

No, Cochise, he honestly said, "it's impossible for humans to hurt the environment." That's just false. He'd have an arguable point if he said, "humans can not destroy the environment" or "humans are not the biggest reason why climate changes are occuring."

But humans can't even hurt the environment? Really? An oil spill? Shooting eagles? Littering? Starting a forest fire?

I am 19, a few years younger, but I never heard of global warming til probably 2-3 years ago.

Baby Lee
06-28-2007, 11:44 AM
He said he was running the country today, too.

No, Cochise, he honestly said, "it's impossible for humans to hurt the environment." That's just false. He'd have an arguable point if he said, "humans can not destroy the environment" or "humans are not the biggest reason why climate changes are occuring."

But humans can't even hurt the environment? Really? An oil spill? Shooting eagles? Littering? Starting a forest fire?

I am 19, a few years younger, but I never heard of global warming til probably 2-3 years ago.
Haven't heard his argument, but I'm guessing he's referring to THE environment, not AN environment.
Can humans eff up a patch of earth? Sure.
Can we destroy the world? It'll probably kick us off first.

:)

noa
06-28-2007, 11:50 AM
Haven't heard his argument, but I'm guessing he's referring to THE environment, not AN environment.
Can humans eff up a patch of earth? Sure.
Can we destroy the world? It'll probably kick us off first.

:)

Reminds me of George Carlin's shtick about all those idiot environmentalists who want to "save the Earth." The Earth will be fine...

Cochise
06-28-2007, 12:15 PM
But humans can't even hurt the environment? Really? An oil spill? Shooting eagles? Littering? Starting a forest fire?

Obviously, if you interpret things in a wooden literal sense all the time, almost everything you are going to hear will be "just false".

Cochise
06-28-2007, 12:16 PM
Haven't heard his argument, but I'm guessing he's referring to THE environment, not AN environment.
Can humans eff up a patch of earth? Sure.
Can we destroy the world? It'll probably kick us off first.

:)

That is exactly the point, I believe.

Adept Havelock
06-28-2007, 02:20 PM
Reminds me of George Carlin's shtick about all those idiot environmentalists who want to "save the Earth." The Earth will be fine...

Just don't forget the rest of that line of thought. ;)

Taco John
06-28-2007, 02:25 PM
Haven't heard his argument, but I'm guessing he's referring to THE environment, not AN environment.
Can humans eff up a patch of earth? Sure.
Can we destroy the world? It'll probably kick us off first.

:)


I think you just summed up the point of most environmentalists that I know...

Jenson71
06-28-2007, 03:59 PM
Obviously, if you interpret things in a wooden literal sense all the time, almost everything you are going to hear will be "just false".

Not true. Almost everything is like, 95%. I'd say it would be far less than that.

Jenson71
06-28-2007, 04:01 PM
Haven't heard his argument, but I'm guessing he's referring to THE environment, not AN environment.
Can humans eff up a patch of earth? Sure.
Can we destroy the world? It'll probably kick us off first.

:)

We have enough nuclear weapons to really F things up. What is there, around 20,000 between us and USSR II? We can start oil drilling wells on fire and make the sky black for a few days. Humans can hurt the environment far more than Rush gives us credit for.

patteeu
06-29-2007, 03:43 PM
Haven't heard his argument, but I'm guessing he's referring to THE environment, not AN environment.
Can humans eff up a patch of earth? Sure.
Can we destroy the world? It'll probably kick us off first.

:)

I've heard Rush specifically address the criticism that Jenson is leveling and your interpretation is correct. I think that when he gets going on one of his rants, he gets a little careless with his language and he lets something like "man can't hurt the environment" slip out even though he means that "the Earth can adapt to anything man can throw at it."

I think a better criticism of Rush is that this misses the point of most of those who are concerned about global warming induced climate change. Those people are presumably worried about human survival on Earth in a state that we've grown accustomed to as opposed to the mere survival of some kind of post-apocalyptic race of primitive man or some other form of life on Earth.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 03:49 PM
What Rush shoulda said was that govts eff up the environment the most, since it's god to liberals.

Otherwise, liberals just can't make it in a free-market of ideas with radio...with different programming expousing different views. Their message loses when counter-arguments come out and they don't like it. Liberal talk radio can't survive in a free-market. This is why the left LOVES excessive regulations and CONTROL. It's a control ideology. FD is just censorship.

Cochise
06-29-2007, 04:17 PM
What Rush shoulda said was that govts eff up the environment the most, since it's god to liberals.

Otherwise, liberals just can't make it in a free-market of ideas with radio...with different programming expousing different views. Their message loses when counter-arguments come out and they don't like it. Liberal talk radio can't survive in a free-market. This is why the left LOVES excessive regulations and CONTROL. It's a control ideology. FD is just censorship.

I agree with some of what you're saying here. I think for many, liberalism is based in part on emotion, and that doesn't translate well to a debate format.