I’m off to jump around a bit, so in the mean time, here’s Terry Hastings, via email. The study he’s covering is a couple months old, but I don’t recall reading it before, so it’s new to me:
I thought Air America failed because the marketplace wasn’t buying what they were selling. Turns out no one listened because they weren’t required to. But, cheer up, the good folks at americanprogress (?) are working on this:
[...]Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.
Being truly progressive, the article naturally has to tie this in to rule of white males who attempt to maintain the empire established by dead white guys.
[...]Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.
The solution is obvious to any true progressive:
[...]
* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting. [I especially liked this part]Notice how neatly one of our most basic freedoms has been reduced back to first requiring consensus-based approval of an interpretive community that will only tolerate viewpoints in agreement with its own.
Progressives aren’t interested in free speech — hell, they aren’t interested in balanced speech, unless the re-balancing, by way of “corrections” to the marketplace (read: because there’s no accounting for the tastes of the proles, good taste must therefore be mandated by the government), favor them — so much as they are vetted speech. Liberal speech (NPR, PBS, etc) under such conditions, can remain unfettered, given that it is not inherently dangerous to the republic; but “right wing” speech needs to be “balanced,” lest its influence convinces people to vote for the wrong party or candidate — which manifestly does hurt the republic, as the Bush presidency has shown.
Think of this not so much as an infringement on freedom or choice. Think of it as a kind of social seatbelt to keep you from hurting yourselves. Or better, a driver’s ed car, with a guy sitting next to you who can take over control of the car should you make a bad decision.
Frighteningly, this kind of “fix” is precisely what we are looking at if and when progressives come to power: not only does the “analysis” by american progress hit all the volk-friendly buzz words (accountability, public interest, diversity, etc) to give it the kind of emotional heft that all such arguments for government takeovers of private enterprise require, but it does so without acknowledging, at least overtly, that there will be a need for actual people (with actual biases) to oversee the enforcement of such notions as “accountability,” “public interest,” and “diversity” — a need that I’d bet progressive bureaucrats would be more than happy to fill.
In short, the argument here is that left-wing talk radio cannot succeed on its own because the marketplace — being about choice — is stacked against it, and that it is in the public interest that Americans either be compelled to listen to, say, Al Franken or Taylor Marsh, or, alternately, that those who they prefer to listen to be silenced.
Out of “fairness.” To people who suck.
Further, the marketplace should be “made” (under the guiding hand of federal “regulators”) to accommodate a kind of proportional ownership that studies show reduces the number of shows to which people actually want to listen in first place. Meaning — again in the name of fairness — that the government will be charged with overseeing a precipitous decline in talk radio.
Which is, of course, the agenda behind this whole move to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” in the first place: proponents wish to scuttle the alternate networks for conservative speech that problematize mainstream media control over the national narrative. After that is accomplished, the next step is to work on controlling Democratic candidates who would break from the progressive agenda — the idea being that only hard-core political wonks and activists will listen to progressive radio to begin with, and that it is precisely this type of person who makes up the Democratic base and votes in primaries. Control the airwaves, and you become kingmakers.
That certain Republicans (hi, Trent!) would back such illiberal, anti-market idiocy is simply proof that they, too, don’t much like losing control over what is being said about them or their policies.
After that, it is only a matter of time before blogs are “regulated” in a similar fashion — though not until they actually prove a threat.
There’s no need to appear against free speech if the speech isn’t damaging, after all. Because people might begin to suspect that your intentions are anything but laudable.
— But, you know, be careful what you wish for…
****
Michelle Malkin’s earlier June post on the CAP analysis here. And here’s something roughly contemperaneous from yours truly.
All censorship is local.
Obligations such as displaying the images of people, reported to the FBI as acting in a highly suspicious manner on public transportation previously identified as at high risk for terrorist acts, who are wanted for questioning?
Say it aint so.
Okay I get it now.
When they can’t win the arguments, their solution is to make sure there’s no one left to argue anymore.
But hey, it’s for our own good right?
I’ve been through this argument multiple times here locally in Nashville with some folks who run the site,“Liberadio”. Every time they whine about conservative radio dominating the airwaves the conversation goes like this-
Liberadio: “Conservatives own too much of talk radio, we need to balance this out to make it fair for all viewpoints.”
Me: “Other than government intervention, how do we make this happen?”
Liberadio:”That’s the only way. The government must force the radio spectrum to have all viewpoints.”
Me:”Who’s gonna pay for this?”
Liberadio: “The Government.”
Me:”So you want my tax dollars to pay for radio I’m not going to listen to, I mean, besides NPR?”
Liberadio:”It’s only fair.”
Me: “How is that fair? I don’t ask for tax dollars to give me conservative talk radio, why should you get that money for liberal talk radio?”
Liberadio: “Because conservative radio is all there is on the dial, we must balance it.”
Me: “They have a system where the government ‘forces’ fairness on the citizens. It isn’t the one we use here.”
Liberadio:”……….it’s still not fair.”
and on and on and on…
I thought liberal talk radio failed because liberals prefer to listen to music. Being as how we’re all artsy and whatnot.
This is precisely why the lie about the mainstream press being “neutral” and “objective” must constantly be fought.
If the left wins on doing this or reinstituting the “fairness doctrine”, then they can silence any conservative viewpoint, while allowing the mainstream press to continue its left slant and claim it does not need to be countered by a conservative viewpoint b/c the mainstream press is allegedly “neutral” and “objective”. After all, NPR survived for years under the “fairness doctrine” without having to air countering conservative viewpoints.
This (along with the great edge it gives them generally) is precisely why the left is so invested in protecting the myth that the mainstream press is “neutral” and “unbiased.”
As always, I ask how an ideology that believes that there is bias and discrimination in every facet of life and that such bias and discrimination must be regulated against with ever expanding laws, can at the same time believe that journalists are wholly capable of being and acting totally non-biased. It boggles the mind.
Even if the govt. did somehow take over the radio airwaves and broadcast nothing but AirAmerica tripe 24/7 it wouldn’t increase the number of people hearing that message because we would all just turn the damn radios off and get our information elsewhere. The impact of the internet and blogs on the rapidly declining ratings of all MSM is perfect example of that.
Why, Gabriel, do you insist on trying to pin these kinds of stereotypings to people on this site?
Don’t make me break out my collection of foreign films, pal.
Besides that, is there anyone in America who does not know the left’s arguments and message? That message is indoctrinated in schools all the way through college, it is put into most entertainment material – sitcoms, dramas, movies, it is in most mainstream press stories – both television and newspaper.
It always makes me laugh when the left claims that they would win if America could “just hear” their message. Their message is well, well known, even by people who have zero interest in politics. Their message is everywhere, all the time.
Indeed, it amazes me that republicans or conservatives ever win elections considering how omnipresent the left’s message is compared with the right’s.
Oh I don’t think the mainstream press is unbiased, but I think the notion that they are consistently biased is a little unrealistic. I get plenty of conservative commentary from NPR, and the Washington Post prints columns from Krauthammer, Will, Gerson, Chuck friggin’ Colson, and Fred Hiatt, so it’s not like there’s this one-sided assault going on. Judy Miller was practically the court stenographer in the run-up to the Iraq war, and it’s not like there’s any GOP talking point that doesn’t hit the major papers entirely unfiltered. I’m not defending the fairness doctrine, but let’s not pretend that we’re adrift in a sea of left-wing media outlets.
Which would work only as long as it took for the tripemongers to put forth a Fairness Doctrine for the internet, and newspapers, and dinner table conversations, and back-fence gossip, and…
Right. So much more fun to pretend that we’re not.
Why does this remind me of Hugo Chavez?
Let me get this straight: “Balance” is good for privately owned media, but when Kenneth Tomlinson tried to balance NPR he was run out of town on a rail.
The solution, then, is to force conservative talk radio to include liberal content, and also subsidize NPR, which should not be balanced with conservative content.
Got it.
In the Realm of the Senses does not count.
– Why, Gabriel, do you insist on trying to pin these kinds of stereotypings to people on this site?
I believe I was stereotyping myself there, boss. If I wanted to hear liberal talk radio I’d put on It Takes A Nation Of Millions, not Pacifica. I’m pretty sure Air America was a crass right-wing plot to discredit liberals, just like Cindy Sheehan and Alan Colmes.
Indeed, it amazes me that republicans or conservatives ever win elections considering how omnipresent the left’s message is compared with the right’s.
This is an argument that the left often presents to show that the media are not overwhelmingly left-leaning. I mean, just because 90% of media employees contribute to the Democratic party…
I thought liberal talk radio failed because liberals prefer to listen to music. Being as how we’re all artsy and whatnot.
I’ve heard several analyses of AA’s failure, one being that Air America tried to start big, from the top-down, instead of doing what most conservative talkers did: start local, build an audience, get syndicated, gradually increase the audience, etc. Consequently, not all conservative shows went national: only the ones people wanted did.
The other analysis is that Air America tried to copy conservative radio but they copied a straw man, i.e., they believe that conservative talkers do nothing but rant bitterly, engage in endless ad hominem, and be angry as wet hornets in the process. So that’s what AA did.
What they didn’t know is that the core of Rush’s style is satire, not anger, and that his success comes from making people laugh at the Dems. And from saying what we’d all been thinking anyway. Glenn Beck is in the same mold, except without the pompous windbag persona of Rush.
Furthermore, you’d have a hard time convincing me that Hewitt and Prager are bitter, angry ranters (Savage is, though), and even Hannity survives more on charm than rants (at which he isn’t all that good).
So we’re back to that stuff about one side stereotyping the other without realizing that it’s a stereotype, and as such, doesn’t stand up to reality very well.
Clearly the reason liberals weren’t gathering ’round the radio to listen to Air America was because they were too busy reading all those books us rubes used as Bud Light coasters while we watched NASCAR in high def on Fox.
For what it’s worth, I listened to Wilco on my way to work this morning.
“Obligations such as displaying the images of people, reported to the FBI as acting in a highly suspicious manner on public transportation previously identified as at high risk for terrorist acts, who are wanted for questioning?”
Broadcast regulations are different than newspaper. You’re not going to see mandates like that in a newspaper environment.
Really? Why? Because the airwaves are ‘public?’ Were there any broadcast news programs that declined to show the images?
And what does this all say for the internet?
What if right wing radio skips the airwaves and goes straight to the web?
conservative commentary from NPR, and the Washington Post prints columns from Krauthammer, Will, Gerson, Chuck friggin’ Colson, and Fred Hiatt, so it’s not like there’s this one-sided assault going on.
The operative term here is “commentary.” We’re not talking about a domination in terms of commentary, we’re talking about the “straight news,” or what’s presented as such. Most of the bias comes from the selection and arrangement of stories, not in what is said about the stories.
When the press reports “grim milestones” in Iraq but not Afghanistan, when they omit stories that would vindicate Bush in the slightest way, when they obsess about Republican sins but ignore Democrats doing the same things or worse, when they put Abu Ghraib on the front page of the NYT for a month straight but not the reports of enemy atrocities (not abuse, atrocities), when they call terrorists “insurgents” or “militants” to affect neutrality, when they report rapes and murders in the Superdome during Katrina as fact, when they casually inject “because of Global Warming” in stories about the weather, when they obsess over the Duke “rape” case but ignore cases when the racial polarity is the opposite, when they fail to fact-check each other, when they present obvious forgeries of TANG documents right before an electionâ€â€
â€â€that’s what we’re talking about when we mention media bias.
What’s worse, the fact that reactionary leftists are a bunch of fascist thugs, or the fact that reactionary leftist don’t realize that they are a bunch of fascist thugs?
Oh I don’t think the mainstream press is unbiased, but I think the notion that they are consistently biased is a little unrealistic. I get plenty of conservative commentary from NPR, and the Washington Post prints columns from Krauthammer, Will, Gerson, Chuck friggin’ Colson, and Fred Hiatt, so it’s not like there’s this one-sided assault going on. Judy Miller was practically the court stenographer in the run-up to the Iraq war, and it’s not like there’s any GOP talking point that doesn’t hit the major papers entirely unfiltered. I’m not defending the fairness doctrine, but let’s not pretend that we’re adrift in a sea of left-wing media outlets.
What’s funny is that you use the same argument every leftist uses. You trot out a few OPINION columnists and one maybe two journalists with a rightward slant and say, “see, its all fair”. When the mainstream media admits in poll after poll that they vote 95% or higher democrat, openly cheer for democrats, etc., it is, frankly, stupid to claim that the vast majority of mainstream press (hint – i’m talking about the journalists, not the opinion pundits) are not left leaning and therefore biased in both their choices of what stories to cover and how to cover them is ridiculous.
So yes, there IS a consistent left bias in the mainstream press. I don’t believe it is a conspiracy, I just think it is human nature. To point at the one or two columns out of an entire paper that are written by conservatives and claim it makes it all equal is so disengenous as to be insulting.
We are adrift in a sea of left wing media outlets. NPR, ABC news, NBC news, CBS news, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, almost ever single major city paper, MSNBC, CNN, etc., etc. are all left leaning. They may have one or two conservative opinion shows or columns, but their “news” production – i.e., the vast majority of what they do, is staffed by, edited by, produced by, and reported by liberals (as many, many reputable polling firms have documented). thus, by virtue of human nature, they are going to bias the news to the left.
And, just to be clear, I have no problem with journalists being biased to the left. I just want them to admit it. It is impossible for anyone to report the news with true neutrality and objectivity. thus, it would serve our country and the world better if the mainstream media simply dropped the charade and then let people weight their reports accordingly.
– What they didn’t know is that the core of Rush’s style is satire, not anger, and that his success comes from making people laugh at the Dems.
Is Jon Stewart pilloried on the right the way Rush is on the left? Because the description sounds about equal, except that Stewart makes people laugh at the Dems pretty consistently too. I would suggest that perhaps another reason AA failed is because they were targeting an audience that doesn’t really exist: the Great Banana Liberals, we’ll call them, for lack of a better term. They went after this liberal stereotype and discovered, via market forces, that the GBLs were awfully loud but of decidedly thin ranks. They would have been better off organizing groups to call in to the conservative call-in shows. It’s not an unheard-of idea.
I would suggest that perhaps another reason AA failed is because they were targeting an audience that doesn’t really exist: the Great Banana Liberals, we’ll call them, for lack of a better term. They went after this liberal stereotype and discovered, via market forces, that the GBLs were awfully loud but of decidedly thin ranks. They would have been better off organizing groups to call in to the conservative call-in shows. It’s not an unheard-of idea.
The funny thing is, why do they – the liberals themselves, believe in that stereotype? Hmmmmm?
Stewart is not a true political commentator, he is a comedian. He skewers people, he does not address ideas and polcies. therefore, he is not really comparable to Rush. The fact that you think Stewart is comparable to Rush in terms of political commentary is kinda scary. That’s like saying Jeanine Garafalo is a really astute political commentator.
They went after this liberal stereotype and discovered, via market forces, that the GBLs were awfully loud but of decidedly thin ranks.
I guess that’s also why the dem presidential candidates went to KOS fest and pander to the nutroots. Just a fake stereo type, there’s not really a lot of libs out there like that, no power or money or anything.
Be careful with your post titles, Jeff. Given the reading comprehension skills of your critics, I expect at any moment to see one of them crowing about how you’ve finally stopped pretending at independence and come out as “pro-totalitarianism.”
You just know they will!
I’m loud and proud by the way. Particularly when I have such easy targets.
I remember a conversation on NPR when Air America was starting up. I paraphrase, as the exact words and names escape me:
Guest (HBO-associated producer): Air America most likely won’t work.
Host (Terri Gross, methinks): (shocked) You really think that? Why?
Guest: Because the market for liberal talk radio is already being adequately served. If there was more of one, we’d have seen it by now. The demand isn’t there.
Host: Served by who?
Guest: (amusedly exasperated) Pacifica and you guys, NPR.
Host: (shocked and offended) NPR isn’t liberal.
Guest (quite amused) Sure, okay, you keep thinking that.
I agree with Banana – journalists have bias of some kind – its inevitable. The leftist thinking taught at so many journalism schools shapes this bias and results in reporters who are guided by their own biases rather than truth.
“Really? Why? Because the airwaves are ‘public?’ ”
They get different first amendment treatment. Because the government HAS to regulate broadcast, but not newsprint. Anyone can start a newspaper. Not anyone can start broadcasting on whatever frequency they want. So the allocation decisions have to be made.
A good first amendment or communications law textbook ought to explain it much better.
“Comment by Jeff G. on 8/24 @ 10:55 am #
Don’t make me break out my collection of foreign films, pal.”
Exactly. We Conservatives aren’t all neanderthals and we LOVE foreign flicks.
I’ve got the Asian Vampire Movies to prove it.
I’m not just sticking to the opinion pages. Check out Peter Baker’s fawning report on Bush’s opinion of himself as a “dissident” from the Post the other day. Or NPR’s coverage of the little successes in Iraq, of people making the best of a bad situation. It’s not all framed as “another grim day in hell.” This “liberal bias” narrative is responsible for far more coloring of opinions than Democratic Party affilation. Joe Lieberman’s a Democrat, Jim Webb’s a Democrat, does that make them both liberals? Hardly. So all the polls in the world aren’t especially convincing on that front. If you look at results, at the ability of the White House to control the news, at the ability of party operatives (from either side) and corporate interests to control what is covered, it doesn’t exactly make a liberal sit back in smug satisfaction. And applying a political slant to Abu Ghraib is irresponsible, in my opinion. We expect atrocities from our enemies in war, we expect to be horrified by that, but we also expect our own people to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with our ideals and morals, and when they defy those ideals in such spectacular fashion, it is BIG news. In more rigidly paternalistic cultures, maybe those stories are given short shrift in the name of the greater war effort, but not here in the city on the hill. And maybe if SOMEone hadn’t been shooting off his mouth about America’s Moral Obligation to bring Democracy and Freedom to the Blighted Peoples and had stuck to more traditional diplomatic language, the juxtaposition wouldn’t have been so striking. That and, you know, sensationalism sells papers. A lot more than liberalism.
– I guess that’s also why the dem presidential candidates went to KOS fest and pander to the nutroots. Just a fake stereo type, there’s not really a lot of libs out there like that, no power or money or anything.
Yeah well, look how far it got Howard Dean. The Dems want votes and they know they can get them there, but they’re not going to swing the election unless it’s all kinds of close. Like the last two.
And I’m going to disagree with you on how policy-driven Stewart is. He doesn’t often wade into advocacy, certainly, but his jokes aren’t really funny without the policy basis. If you’re looking for policy-free jokes, check out the steaming turd that is the Half-Hour News Hour. It’s about as entertaining as Carlos Mencia.
“Not anyone can start broadcasting on whatever frequency they want”
Unless of course you the brillant Air America team Al Frankin, Randy Rhodes, whats-her-face Garafolo you can takeover the only all black radio station in NYC using funds meant for the poor folks at Gloria Wise Boy and Girls (and old people) in the Bronx.
For Air America the ends justify the means; need a radio show simply throw the plantation slaves to the back of the bus. All for Fairness and whatnot.
The composition of the NPR audience is far more liberal than the composition of the news/talk format is conservative. NPR is commanding the attention of those listeners who, if they were reflected in the Arbitron ratings of the corporate news/talk audience, would provide the raison d’être for the news/talk stations to provide programming for this audience.
The CAP study does not address this. (This is an inherency argument.)
The barrier to the resolution of programming balance in the news/talk radio status quo is NOT insufficient government regulation, but the current government policies which encourage the liberal audience to eschew private radio broadcasting.
Gabe, do you know what paragraph breaks are? Or do you actually think the same way that you write?
Gabe, since your rantiness seems to peak with Abu Ghraib, can you tell me what happened after that came to the attention of the proper authorities?
You little bigoted turd.
“Unless of course you the brillant Air America team Al Frankin, Randy Rhodes, whats-her-face Garafolo you can takeover the only all black radio station in NYC using funds meant for the poor folks at Gloria Wise Boy and Girls (and old people) in the Bronx.”
That’s not “any frequency they want.” That’s plain old money power operating.
These folks are so blinded they won’t even believe polling of themselves, if it interferes with what they tell themselves about themselves.
I need to think of a good name for this. Or a good analogy. Or metaphor. Or simile.
But until then, I’ll just go with, “HOW DARE YOU BELIEVE ME!”
I’d put on It Takes A Nation Of Millions
That shit’s fooling no one, fishbelly. Try proving you’re down by telling a black guy how much you love that album. Especially if you name it first. See how that goes.
Since you’ll never see that disdainful eye-roll — liberals don’t associate with authentic black people — I’ll translate it into Whitey for you:
The belatedly fetishized flattened commodity-remnants of a failed revolution signify only their flattening. It had its moment — a summer — but that record survives only as a totem of white triumphalism. It’s Rolling Stone‘s number one, with all that represents, not The Source‘s. “White people love Nation of Millions because it makes Malcolm X look like Bryant Gumbel,” as Negrodamus might say.
And…
Marx!
“I thought Air America failed because the marketplace wasn’t buying what they were selling.”
Also, the audience attention span wasn’t sufficient to make the verbiage spew viable.
“Liberal speech (NPR, PBS, etc) under such conditions, can remain unfettered, given that it is not inherently dangerous to the republic; but “right wing†speech needs to be “balanced,†lest its influence convinces people to vote for the wrong party or candidate  which manifestly does hurt the republic, as the Bush presidency has shown.”
Revival of talk about “the fairness doctrine” is exactly in keeping with attempts to control the narrative. Dianne Feinstein was recently aghast that radio airwaves might have educated listeners as to the disastrous nature of the “immigration bill”. Dianne just stopped of saying that radio listeners had been “bamboozled” into disbelieving in the huge merits of said bill. Her assumption seemed to be that such goings on in radio should be subject to regulation or, at the very least, “balance”.
These proposed “fixes” are, indeed, frightening.
Sorry Gabriel, you can’t have it both ways.
You assert Bush’s “ability to control the news”, and in the same post applaud the “Big News” of Abu Graib (which happened to be on the front page of the nation’s most important newspaper for about a solid month straight).
Got “cognitive dissonance”?
I have made that very argument myself.
Unlike you, though, I truly AM amazed.
It helps, of course, that most people no longer trust the mainstream press (though they are still influenced by it, necessarily, given that the legacy media still largely drives the “news”); but some of the help goes to Dem candidates, who come across, often times, as condescending, and who tend to treat the electorate as mewling yahoos.
NPR’s flagship drive-time morning program NEVER MENTIONED the CIA inspector general report detailing (Clinton-era) failures at the CIA with respect to the prevention of that thing where the airplanes crashed into those buildings in New York and that Pentagon thingy.
“Unlike you, though, I truly AM amazed. ”
Like in the runup to the war? The constant drumbeat of the anti-war voices?It’s inexplicable how we got people to sign up to be here, 4.5 years later at the peak of troop levels talking about measured progress.
I had downloaded that report a few months ago and found it to be a a means to an end. The idea that more local, woman and minority ownership is needed to tip the balance and “serve the public” made me laugh then. I’m still laughing.
What is this obsession with the “impact” and “influence” of talk radio? You would think that Rush has a secret brain wave transmitter that only picks those with IQ’a under 100 and imprints them with the imperative to pump his Nielsons. Give me a break. With the advent of XR and Sirius radio is going to change forever anyway.
Decentra, I pick option B. My daughter is a moderate and a Communications grad. She declared that Air America was “unlistenable” because of the rank bitterness that oozed through almost every bit. GB hit it on the head. My boss is an unrepentant Massachusetts liberal and he loves to listen to Rush. Because he is funny, therefore entertaining. I’ve stopped listening to Hannity because he has been, of late, consistantly more angry. I’ve never been able to listen to Savage for the same reason. Liberal or conservative most people don’t want to hear hour after hour of bitter angst.
Gabriel, that is damn funny! There are times I’ve listened to Sheehan and said, “Rove, you magnificent bastard!” Then again I’ve tried to pin Pat Buchanan on James Carville, LOL!
Already I can see the focus on Iraq shifting in my local rag (Philly Inquirer) away from almost daily headlines about bombings and casualties and all of the terrorists we’ve created to the political “ineffectiveness” of the Iraqi government. Something tells me that the security gains of the last several months are being anticipated and, as other commentators have pointed out, the precarious political situation will now be highlighted as the “problem.” Headline:
U.S. intellegence Update: amid security gains, Iraqi leaders “remain unable to govern effectively”
Governing Iraq: ‘More precarious’
This framing of the news along with some of the more aggregious issues with AP and Reuters would seem to indicate a natural left tilting bias.
As far as the so called “public trust” of the airways: Just because the government will have to mete out frequencies why should it have to regulate political content? Why is it the government’s job to insure some sort of political balance? The very idea, whether or not it’s rooted in past practice, should be an anathema to anyone who love free speach. Let the voters decide what’s fair and stop inflating this magical ability to create lockstep minions.
Well, except for Goldstein’s Grunts but that’s because of the pie.
Gabriel said, hilariously:
I’m pretty sure Air America was a crass right-wing plot to discredit liberals, just like Cindy Sheehan and Alan Colmes.
All were quite effective.
Jeff,
May I suggest “Delibrium”?
Defined as; “A condition prevelant among the “mainstream media” whereby individuals suffer a detachment from reality, display a complete lack of awareness of their surroundings and are unable to distinguish between reality and the liberal fantasies, narratives & delusions in which they’re invested”?
– Got “cognitive dissonanceâ€Â?
Hey, great point there. Score one for you! Can we, just for a second, quit assuming I’m an extremist? Sure, maybe I should have said “ability to get what he wants into the news in the form he desires, if not the ability to keep out all that he wants to keep out, especially in situations where said news is the shining example of ‘it bleeds it leads’ in neon and sparkles” but I figured if anyone didn’t figure that out and wanted clarification he or she would ask. Understand?
“And applying a political slant to Abu Ghraib is irresponsible, in my opinion. We expect atrocities from our enemies in war, we expect to be horrified by that, but we also expect our own people to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with our ideals and morals, and when they defy those ideals in such spectacular fashion, it is BIG news.”
So American’s doing to prisoners what some people in San Francisco pay $250 an hour to have done to them is the moral equivelent of sawing off someone’s head with a rusty scimitar.
Alrighty, then.
“Already I can see the focus on Iraq shifting in my local rag (Philly Inquirer)”
HAH!
I get only the Sunday edition of the Inky for 2 reasons: so my wife can get the store coupons and I can do the crossword.
Hang in there, Gabriel. Try to remember that most of the time we’re dealing with the “mighty winds” that are heet, markg8, timb, semanticleo, michilines and that other guy with the pretentious handle, “Ignorance in a Time of Cementheads” or soemthing.
Mark Levin kicks it.
Real hard and real straight.
Oh snap, psychologizer! You heard it here first, folks: Gabe Fry’s not black enough. Peep his cd collection, yo, it’s written in black and white. But mostly white. And not authentically black.
Bullshit. The press was aware of the investigation long before the story ‘sploded onto the front pages. There was a press conference at which the investigation was announced; but the announcement hardly merited a response from the press. They knew people were being investigated for abusing prisoners; they just didn’t report it.
It wasn’t until — months later — one of the defense lawyers sent the photos to friendly reporters that the story “went big”.
If it was BIG NEWS that US soldiers mistreated someone, it would have been BIG NEWS when it was announced to a room full of reporters by a Pentagon spokesman. It didn’t become BIG NEWS until the pictures were made available by an attorney trying to get the press to spin his client as a victim of Bush administration policy, rather than a pervert who disregarded direct orders on the treatment of prisoners.
It was the political utility of Abu Ghraib that made it a story, not the facts.
– So American’s doing to prisoners what some people in San Francisco pay $250 an hour to have done to them is the moral equivelent of sawing off someone’s head with a rusty scimitar.
No. But as Robert Maplethorpe ably demonstrated, it’s a bigger deal when it’s federally funded.
I have to agree with the sentiment here about the style of programing of conservative radio vs. liberal radio. I’ve attempted to listen to both and, for the most part, liberal radio is just incredibly difficult to swallow. The bitterness and anger being spewed forth, in small doses, is probably not that bad. However, it’s the highest form of torture if you have to listen to it for more than 5 minutes.
It’s the reason why I can’t stand a guy like Hannity on the “conservative” side (I put “conservative” in quotes because, quite frankly, I think he has no official ideology and, instead, just follows whatever Republicans do blindly; better stated, he’s a fake with no backbone). The anger this guy spews is beyond words.
On the other hand, while I don’t like Rush, I do enjoy Jay Severen who is on drive time in RI/MA. He’s definitely a conservative, and does show some more extremist views at times (mostly in relation to foreign policy since, by his own admission, that’s where he’s weak; his domestic ideas are far more sound and sane), but he doesn’t come across as bitter and angry. He’s jovial and settles for the witty and satirical barb over the angry, blood thirsty rant.
Of course, the things that make him great on radio are some of the things that make him incompatible with TV (I believe he was fired from MSNBC).
at the peak of troop levels
That is just not true. The troop levels now are lower than there were at the beginning.
Sorry things aren’t going according to your schedule. Maybe if the evil republicans hadn’t been running the show.
The difference between the relative newsworthiness of a Pentagon report that soldiers were being investigated for prisoner abuse and pictures of hot chicks striking poses with iced-up corpses and naked prisoners in cheerleader piles is, I would think, self-evident. Hint: it’s not the political aspect that differentiates the two.
Now you can argue that the Pentagon report was given short shrift, but not out of liberal bias (correct me if I’m wrong), but the amount of time devoted to the dude on the box with the electrodes seems to be about what you would expect for a story about taxpayer funding of putting dudes on boxes and hooking car batteries to them, especially in the service of Spreading Freedom Like Thick, Democratic Butter Over The Lightly Toasted Middle East.
No. But as Robert Maplethorpe ably demonstrated, it’s a bigger deal when it’s federally funded.
Yeah, but even if we were merely to dip them in piss I’m sure someone would be offended. Perhaps if we farmed out our torture needs to private citizens that would help to alleviate the issue? Guess it’s worth a try.
“It was the political utility of Abu Ghraib that made it a story, not the facts.”
abu ghraib, guantanamo, abu ghraib, guantanamo, on into the night, ad nauseam, ad infinitum…
“hot chicks striking poses with iced-up corpses and naked prisoners…”
Lynndie England is a hot chick ?
(back later)
“No. But as Robert Maplethorpe ably demonstrated, it’s a bigger deal when it’s federally funded.”
That has to be the airiest strawman, evah!
Which war?
But I will say this: the “drumbeat” pretty clearly matched the vote — though now, the drumbeat pretty clearly matches only those who have since backpedaled from their original vote.
Draw what you like from that, I guess. Me, I tend to think the media wants to see Dems protected whenever possible.
She is to somebody, apparently. But I’m partial to the red-head.
Look man, you want to play that silly moral equivalence game, that’s what you get: jokes. You can’t compare what they do to our people with what we do to their people unless you pretend that our moral compasses are pointing the same direction. It’s not shocking when violent, despicable terrorists do violent, despicable things, because they’re friggin’ violent, despicable terrorists. It is shocking when American soldiers on an expressly stated mission of liberation do violent, despicable things, because they are the physical expression of the United States and what it stands for, which is equal justice under the law, respect for the inherent dignity of human beings, etc. You know, just generally not beating people to death for kicks.
“the “drumbeat†pretty clearly matched the vote”
What numbers do you use for this? Counts of anti-war opinion voices in newspapers? Counts of newspapers endorsing the war in their editorials, or running ‘anti-war’ and ‘pro-war’ articles?
A lot of the country has changed their minds on this war. They don’t like the bill of goods they were sold. And its not just because of stories they are told. But because they see things like the fact that we are there 4.5 years later talking about measured progress and how things are going to get less stable.
But you know, there was that cop in fallujah…
– Draw what you like from that, I guess. Me, I tend to think the media wants to see Dems protected whenever possible.
So your position is that “comfort the afflicted” includes the mentally afflicted? Haha. I think the media tends to be meaner to people who control the levers of power, and especially if those folks loooove them some secrets. I expect this “liberal bias” thing will dry up and blow away if we get a Democratic president. Especially if said president hires charmers like Dana Perino and Tony Snow to do the talking and only speaks to handpicked, softball-lobbing audiences who ask real scorchers like “does it hurt your feewings when people question your decisions?”
Right, markel. Anything worth doing should take, like, 15 minutes.
Look man, you want to play that silly moral equivalence game, that’s what you get: jokes. You can’t compare what they do to our people with what we do to their people unless you pretend that our moral compasses are pointing the same direction. It’s not shocking when violent, despicable terrorists do violent, despicable things, because they’re friggin’ violent, despicable terrorists. It is shocking when American soldiers on an expressly stated mission of liberation do violent, despicable things, because they are the physical expression of the United States and what it stands for, which is equal justice under the law, respect for the inherent dignity of human beings, etc. You know, just generally not beating people to death for kicks.
Beating people to death for kicks. With a double bonus of the terrorists can’t help it, it’s just the way they are. I suppose then that we need our own psycho-killer squad so we too can get a pass from you. BTW, it’s starting to become a little clearer why you profess to not being able to see the “typical liberal” which the right is so busy decrying.
That “the terrorists can’t help it, it’s just the way they are” quip is ADORABLE. I LOVE it! Do you seriously think that’s what I’m saying? Do you think that I’m saying that it’s okay for terrorists to cut people’s heads off and torture them with drills just because they’re terrorists? I need a smidge of clarification here just so I can be absolutely positive that you are completely serious about that. I really wouldn’t want to go off half-cocked over a joke that I failed to appreciate, or over some typo that caused me to misconstrue your comment as implying that I actually was trying to say that it’s okay for terrorists to terrorize just because it’s in their nature, and not what I actually said, which is that it is more shocking when US soldiers torture prisoners than when terrorists do, and thus more likely to garner news coverage.
Just front me one this time, would you, Education Guy? I’ll pay you back if you ever need a similar favor from me.
But as Robert Maplethorpe ably demonstrated, it’s a bigger deal when it’s federally funded.
That’s damn funny, and no lie. Gabe, you’re all right by me, even if we don’t see eye to eye on most things.
“That is just not true. The troop levels now are lower than there were at the beginning. ”
According to Brookings (pdf, page 28), total troop levels are now at 173,508. That includes other coalition countries, but not iraqi army / police. It looks like in 05 we had peaks of up to 180, again including coalition (poland!). But as far as US goes, we are at a peak now. We might also be at a peak if we include Iraqi army and police forces, or even allied milita in the coalition. Plus one cop in fallujah, of course
But that Brookings data only goes to may of 03, and the invasion was in march/april. Wikipedia tells me 120K US and 45K British forces were staging in kuwait, but not how many ended up going in.
How many did go in?
“Right, markel. Anything worth doing should take, like, 15 minutes.”
Rumsfeld said he doubted 6 months. I don’t think he had 15 minutes in mind though. But don’t tell me. Tell all the quiet americans that have changed their minds. I haven’t changed my mind. I knew this is pretty much what we were in for.
You can’t compare what they do to our people with what we do to their people unless you pretend that our moral compasses are pointing the same direction. It’s not shocking when violent, despicable terrorists do violent, despicable things, because they’re friggin’ violent, despicable terrorists.
These are your words. Give me the code so that I can understand why my statement was off the mark. Maybe I’m wrong, and to be fair you deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Again: HOW DARE YOU BELIEVE US!
Or, if you prefer, HOW “DARE” YOU BELIEVE “US”!
I use the same metric you used to make the assertion in the first place.
Which was…?
I expect this “liberal bias” thing will dry up and blow away if we get a Democratic president.
Yeah, they’ll scourge her relentlessly for her inadequate liberalism and take a “hard look” at the DLC.
“Mrs. President, are the grim budget realities left in the wake of the Bush Administration responsible for the difficulties you’ve had in persuading Congress to more fully enact your agenda?”
ok that’s a mess – but the subscriber base of the NYT etc, or NPR’s donor base, or Keith Olbermann’s viewer, they are paying for that bias. No one’s gonna buy the Lucky Charms if they take away the marshmallows.
Sorry Education Guy. I got a little heated there. The code is, we were talking about comparing terrorist torturers with American torturers in the context of what is more sensational newspaper copy. American torture being (traditionally) more unlikely than terrorist torture, it’s bigger news, in the way that a tornado would be bigger news in Mile High Stadium than in the Kansas plains.
You can’t compare what they do to our people with what we do to their people unless you pretend that our moral compasses are pointing the same direction.
They do. Thats why it’s call a ‘war’ . There is no such thing as a moral war.
I can’t wait for a Dem president, so that I can read all the magnanimous congratulations from the right-wing blogs to the liberal elites in the MSM on having overcome their liberal bias when they put a splashy article on the front page of the New York Times about Hillary’s brother’s shady financial dealings or Edwards’ clumsy diplomacy or Obama’s thousands of votes from the Chicago cemetaries. I’m calling that right now.
Sure, Gabriel, but your satisfaction will be short-lived if we don’t solve the climate crisis.
“Comment by Gabriel Fry on 8/24 @ 3:38 pm #
I can’t wait for a Dem president, so that I can read all the magnanimous congratulations from the right-wing blogs to the liberal elites in the MSM on having overcome their liberal bias when they put a splashy article on the front page of the New York Times about Hillary’s brother’s shady financial dealings or Edwards’ clumsy diplomacy or Obama’s thousands of votes from the Chicago cemetaries. I’m calling that right now.”
You’re gonna have a loooooooong wait, cos.
Six months for what? To take Iraq and topple Hussein? Seems like we beat that by a substantial margin–that part took, what, three weeks?
“I use the same metric you used to make the assertion in the first place.
Which was…?”
I used my memory of some studies. Which googling provides:
At a time when 61 percent of U.S. respondents were telling pollsters that more time was needed for diplomacy and inspections (2/6/03), only 6 percent of U.S. sources on the four networks were skeptics regarding the need for war.
And you used the same.
“Six months for what? To take Iraq and topple Hussein? Seems like we beat that by a substantial margin–that part took, what, three weeks?”
He said the conflict: “And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
So if you think the conflict is over, then he’s quite prescient. But if the conflict is still there, and we can’t leave that cop alone in fallujah, then i’d say he’s way wrong. He’s also wrong on his first point: it was quite knowable that force would be used.
Markel, answer BJTex’s question.
As far as the so called “public trust†of the airways: Just because the government will have to mete out frequencies why should it have to regulate political content? Why is it the government’s job to insure some sort of political balance?
Ans let me add; is it even possible for the government to be an arbiter of political balance?
Any good first amendment or communications law textbook should explain it for you.
“As far as the so called “public trust†of the airways: Just because the government will have to mete out frequencies why should it have to regulate political content?”
I didn’t say that it has to. I said that the first amendment issues are going to be different. Because of the necessary regulation as well as the scarcity. We can decide that it would be perfectly fine for a radio station to refuse to sell airtime to one candidate, or give free airtime to one but charge the others exhorbitant fees.
“Ans let me add; is it even possible for the government to be an arbiter of political balance?”
I suppose on a few angles. For example, politicians have parties and you can tally up how much time is spent airing those people. You can tally up how much access people are given. Up above I quoted a study that tallied up how many anti-war voices were on the air. Whether it is possible is different than whether it is a good idea though.
So, is it a good idea?
Oh. Then I guess we used different metrics. I’m not sure any studies have been done yet on how the press is currently cheerleading the war. But I don’t think they are, in general. Call it a hunch.
The study you cite talks about the guests on the networks: “Seventy-six percent of all sources were current or former officials, leaving little room for independent and grassroots views. Similarly, 75 percent of U.S. sources (199/267) were current or former officials.”
So current or former officials were the ones being asked about the war. Instead of, say, a Daily Kos diarists. And their opinions didn’t match that of the US public.
Uh, so? All this tells us is that the majority of former and current officials at the time were supportive of the war. Now, what was the Congressional vote again?
I think McGehee’s right. I think one of our former guests has returned under a different name.
And I’m not sure the major networks alone comprise the mainstream press.
scarcity?
The “higher standard” argument is also bullshit. It lets people quietly ignore atrocities by our enemies whilst acting like any crime committed by one of our troops is the end of civilization as we know it.
Oh wait, if we judged the US and Coalition Militaries and Al Qaeda using the same standard, then people would have to admit that Al Qaeda et al are irredeemably evil.
markel: One, I took the “six months” to mean the invasion. Period. In fact, I was surprised the invasion went so well. Building a new nation is always annoying and takes time. Sorry you are too impatient.
Either way, if you want to claim Rumsfeld was saying the whole thing would be solved within six months, all you’re really saying is he’s not a psychic.
“And I’m not sure the major networks alone comprise the mainstream press.”
Me neither. But there is some data. And you have the same: 6% of guests were skeptical of the war. 4x that much, or 23% of the senate voted agains the war. 5x as many, or 30% of the house, voted against. Who knows how many how many who voted for where ‘skeptical.’
I’m not so sure why the major networks would be that different from the rest of the mainstream press, or why their guests would not be a useful proxy for what is broadcast in general. But other than this data, all we have is what we wish the narrative to be.
I agree, it would be really interesting to see how many guests on TV today are skeptical of the war, or want us to leave soon. And compare that with how many in the US feel that way. Maybe the media coming in line with public opinion would be noticeable. And scary to some people.
“So, is it a good idea?”
Equal access regulations seem like a good idea. I’d say it would be pretty skewed in the battle of resources if the guy that owned the TV station in a town was able to set different prices for different politicians. So that money spent buying a TV station would give you political control in a way that money spent buying other resources would not. Competition regs make sense too, to limit agglomeration. I also like local ownership, and even size restrictions, to protect things like community radio.
including coalition (poland!)
markel,
Bite me.
Fair enough, but I wasn’t really asking about access regulation, but content regulation.
So, do you think it’s a good idea for the government to regulate a broadcast station’s content for political fairness?
And if the government does so then isn’t all broadcast media effectively the voice of the government?
“Equal access regulations seem like a good idea.”
Ah, the fascist peeps from beneath the bedcovers.
“I’d say it would be pretty skewed in the battle of resources if the guy that owned the TV station in a town was able to set different prices for different politicians.”
But it’s ok for, say, the NY Times to slant it’s coverage to the left.
Gotcha.
Besides, it ain’t none of your business what the owner does eith a TV station. He’s the owner, see.
“So that money spent buying a TV station would give you political control in a way that money spent buying other resources would not.”
Yep, the American publik is so igorant that they have to be led to the Promised Land.
“Competition regs make sense too, to limit agglomeration.”
W. T. F. is “agglomeration?
“I also like local ownership, and even size restrictions, to protect things like community radio.”
Then go start your own radio stations.
Good lord, some people seem dismayed at the re-emergence of democracy in the Republic.
The Congress and liberal media have had their way with the country for a very long time, on the one hand, a “disassociated” populace not particularly aware of the legislation being passed (and the perks or self-serving boondoggles it might contain) and, OTOH, a virtual monopoly of the airwaves.
With the the blogosphere, “talk radio”, cable networks etc. more people are more interested in government. This is uncomfortable to some (ohmygod “the people” can’t become involved in “the peoples’ business)
It seems that, in defense, they would resurrect the “fairness doctrine” to try to put constraints around this outburst of interest and self-expression.
Fork ’em all.
Your comment will be held pending moderation.
And then, the important part, don’t sell them for lots and lots of cash.
Traitors.
C’mon, Gabriel, you little anti-Hispanic toad. Answer my question. What happened when the proper authorities found out about Abu Ghraib?
Pardon me — I just shot Diet Coke through my nose.
Does anyone else remember an administration that illegally acquired FBI background files of political opponents? That used the IRS as a weapon against critics? That “lost” paperwork until the questions about it had faded away? That ran such an out-of-control Justice Department that dozens of people were killed in an unnecessary raid, others were killed in an unnecessary stand-off, and that executed probably the only SWAT-style raid ever for apprehending a single, grade-school-aged immigrant to be deported?
The administration that brought us lines like “no controlling legal authority”?
The administration that even once it was out of office, took to destroying government documents in order to hide their record on national security?
The liberal bias was certainly around — and mentioned — during the Clinton presidency. Fer crissake — did Clinton ever release his medical records? In contrast, look at the wailing and moaning from the press when Bush waited nearly a year to make public that he had been treated for possible Lyme disease — because it had happened just after the last time he released his medical records.
If the press is so gung-ho for taking on the powerful, why the hell aren’t they camped out in front of Ted Kennedy’s office, demanding he speak to them on record, extemporaneously (to prove his mental faculties are still there)? Why aren’t they demanding to know more about Barbara Boxer’s votes for appropriations directed to firms owned by her husband?
Why aren’t they digging into earmarks? It seems to me an unbiased press, interested in going after the powerful regardless of party, would be doing this kind of work, rather than leaving it up to amateurs. Hell, the earmarks stories have the aspects you said make the press sit up and bark — power and secrets — plus the aspect of corruption and the misuse of public funds.
So why the hell aren’t the mainstream media hunting down the earmarks and who’s getting the money?
OK. How about I post some campaign signs in your yard, then? Can I slap an opposing candidate’s bumper sticker next to the one on your car?
How about demanding that the fliers passed around by campaigns include arguments from all sides? Equal access, after all.
Equal access regulations seem like a good idea. I’d say it would be pretty skewed in the battle of resources if the guy that owned the TV station in a town was able to set different prices for different politicians. So that money spent buying a TV station would give you political control in a way that money spent buying other resources would not. Competition regs make sense too, to limit agglomeration. I also like local ownership, and even size restrictions, to protect things like community radio.
Lets just get the government out of the frequency auction business altogether. “Congress shall pass no law……………………….” pretty self explanatory.
“But it’s ok for, say, the NY Times to slant it’s coverage to the left.”
Note the TV station could slant its coverage too. But not its advertising prices.
“Besides, it ain’t none of your business what the owner does eith a TV station. He’s the owner, see”
Certainly he’s the owner. But he’s not the owner of those scarce airwaves he’s beaming into my house, and which I’m not allowed to broadcast on. Is he?
“Then go start your own radio stations.”
On what frequency?
“How about demanding that the fliers passed around by campaigns include arguments from all sides? Equal access, after all.”
I dont’ think we have the same scarcity arguments with flyers as we have with frequency. see above.
“Lets just get the government out of the frequency auction business altogether. “Congress shall pass no law……………………….†pretty self explanatory.”
Then who would get to use what frequency? the one with the most powerfull transmitter? the one with the technology to jam the others?
The rationale for government control of content of radio broadcasts is that the “public airwaves” are a limited resource controlled by the government. This limited resource must be used for the public good. Radio broadcasts are delivered via the public airwaves. Therefore the political content of radio broadcasts must be controlled by the government for the public good.
“Public roads” are a limited resource built, owned and controlled by government at many levels. This limited resource must be used for the public good. Newspapers are delivered via public roads. Therefore the political content of newspapers must be controlled by the government for the public good.
Sauce for the goose?
The free market is the most efficient method to allocate limited resources for the public good as defined by the public.
“Therefore the political content of newspapers must be controlled by the government for the public good.”
Not really. The newspapers’ use of the roads are non-rivalrous. Several newspapers can use the same public road. It doesn’t work that way with frequencies. We can’t have competitors using the same frequencies, because if so, the market breaks down.
“The free market is the most efficient method to allocate limited resources for the public good as defined by the public.”
That is so awesome.
The government should require that all Spanish language newspapers also be printed in English because promoting bi-lingualism is in the public interest.
The government should require that all newspapers be printed in 8 point type or smaller because saving paper saves trees saves the planet. Since this would make it harder for
old peoplepeople in the largest voting block to read them, every newspaper will be required to include a magnifying glass, one of those nice rectangular ones with the comfort grip handle.We can’t have competitors using the same frequencies
What about spread spectrum?
Why did you take out the italics? Are you homophobic markel? Hater.
“The government should require that all Spanish language newspapers also be printed in English because promoting bi-lingualism is in the public interest.”
I think you’re hearing or reading the words “public interest” and thinking you can apply them wherever you want. It doesn’t work that way.
“What about spread spectrum?”
What about it? AFAIK, that’s not what peoples radios or tv’s support, so its not really how frequencies work in reaality.
“Why did you take out the italics? Are you homophobic markel? Hater.”
Maybe ctrl-c is.
I think you’re hearing or reading the words “public interest†and thinking you can apply them wherever you want. It doesn’t work that way.
Right. Only liberals can do that.
If the radio spectrum is so limited how did Air America even broadcast?
You don’t even have a clue about the coming move to digital broadcasting, do you markel? Your TV won’t receive the digital broadcasts. Your FM radio won’t receive satellite radio. Your brain can’t comprehend your whole fucking argument is nothing but a rationalization.
Iraq is just like Vietnam except when Bush says it is. Am I right?
Why is it that more socialism is always in the public interest?
One word markle-Cable. Now go get me a cup of coffee. There’s a good lad.
“If the radio spectrum is so limited how did Air America even broadcast?”
As someone mentioned above, in some by moving other players out of the market. In NY, apparently it was an all black station they shut down. You clearly see how this is not like newspapers or blogs right?
“You don’t even have a clue about the coming move to digital broadcasting, do you markel?”
I do. I know it is regulations that are bringing us there. At least on TV:
At midnight on February 17, 2009, federal law requires that all full-power television broadcast stations stop broadcasting in analog format and broadcast only in digital format.
But even besides all that, I’d say there ought to be a role for non-commercial players in radio. Like churches and community associations and the like. And that can be achieved with things like what the FCC does with low power FM
Uh, markel, do you comprehend what will happen to the “limited spectrum” argument once broadcasting goes digital? It’ll disappear. There won’t be a limited spectrum. Spread spectrum lets everyone use the same bandwidth…
And the switch to digital won’t happen in 2009. Most likely the stations will be required to continue analog broadcasting to service people who haven’t bought new TVs. Or the switch-over date will be delayed — again.
You’re arguing against a position no one’s taken. No one’s said small audiences shouldn’t be served; we’re just saying government has no place in forcing broadcasters to not serve large audiences.
“Uh, markel, do you comprehend what will happen to the “limited spectrum†argument once broadcasting goes digital? It’ll disappear. There won’t be a limited spectrum. Spread spectrum lets everyone use the same bandwidth…”
So anyone can start a TV station out of their basement? Great! Will all TVs work with these?
“And the switch to digital won’t happen in 2009. Most likely the stations will be required to continue analog broadcasting to service people who haven’t bought new TVs”
So you think the law or regs will be changed? why?
“You’re arguing against a position no one’s taken. ”
klrfz1 was telling me the free market was the way to go. I’m addressing that.
I’m happy someone on the left has finally admitted Churches have some right to spread their message in public.
NPR is a nationwide network of tax supported radio stations spreading the gospel of socialism. Why not one for the Christianists, too?
Now that would be a fairness doctrine we could all get behind. Except Ardsgaine.
It’s possible to get internet radio over your cell phone, right? It’s expensive though. So government subsidies are the answer. Government subsidies are always the answer. What was the question again?
I guess markle doesn’t like truly free speech. Let’s regulate the internet!!!
Hell if I know. Likely it would be technologically possible, but the equipment’s likely to be expensive. Then you run into licensing, zoning regs, electrical codes, etc.
Or you could realize that broadcast video is a relic of a by-gone age, and post your material on YouTube. Or host it yourself. Bandwidth is practically unlimited today.
Because they’ve been changed a handful of times already. The adoption rate of digital TV — particularly broadcast digital TV — has been slow, so slow that broadcasters would have lost most of their audience if the mandated switch over had happened earlier. From what I can tell, they’d lose a large portion of their audience if the switch happened in 2009; people just aren’t interested in paying for the new technology.
Most importantly, the 1997 law that mandated the switch said the switch-over could be delayed if the converters aren’t “generally available”. That may not apply in 2009, I don’t know. I do believe that if consumers are told they have to replace their televisions by law, they won’t be pleased.
Really? There was no remnant of that in your statement. There’s no conflict between the free market and the existence of non-commercial broadcasters.
“I guess markle doesn’t like truly free speech. Let’s regulate the internet!!!”
What you’re not getting is that the free speech issues are going to be different on the airwaves. It’s illegal for me to broadcast on certain frequencies. You think thats pro- or anti- free speech?
I did say this is not like blogs. I suppose just because one is in favor of free speech, it don’t mean you’re actually paying attention.
“Then you run into licensing”
Licensing? What’s the need for licenses? I thought it was all about digital freedom man?
“Or you could realize that broadcast video is a relic of a by-gone age”
It could be. But if you follow the money, you’ll notice lots of money is spent on broadcast, because there are audiences there. If you think its a bygone thing, then all the arguments against regulation disappear too. Because it’s all about the youtube now. Thats what all of us americans with internet access handy are on right? I don’t think that’s the case.
“There’s no conflict between the free market and the existence of non-commercial broadcasters.”
Sure there is. What happens when a non-commercial broadcaster gets bought by a commercial one? When a local community radio gets bought by a non-local entity? The free market says that is allowed to happen. FCC rules that set up parts of the spectrum for non-commercial local community uses say otherwise.
https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9652#comment-233783
That’s a great link, the video on tracking down John Murtha’s earmarked “center for instrumented critical infrastructure”.
Thanks !
Of course competitors must use different frequencies in the same geographical area. But spacing geographically allows reuse of the same channel simultaneously. Broadcasting is not a zero-sum game, with one use depriving others of a same resource overall. I need to emphasize that since leftists seem to think that everything has a zero-sum outcome and requires government regulation to assure fairness.
If, for example, 550 khz in the New York City area is used to broadcast The Hard Right Wing Conspiracy Broadside, that same 550 khz channel can be used to broadcast Janeane Garafolo’s Cavalcade of Left Wing Bitching simultaneously in Louisville, Ky. Reuse of channels has been the rule on most channels in the non-shortwave broadcast spectrum (below about 3,000 khz) and all FM and television channels. A few channels are limited to very few stations, like Cincinnati’s WLW at 700 khz, which runs 50,000 watts night and day, omnidirectionally (in all directions equally from a single antenna). There are only nine other broadcast stations on that same channel in the United States. For 550 khz, the example above, there are 30 stations using the same frequency simultaneously. On 1,530 khz, there are 34 users. In all, there are about 5,600 AM stations in the U.S., which requires a lot of frequency reuse. There are about 9,600 channel-reusing FM broadcasters.
If there are no available channels for AA in a given market, it is not because all channels are in use by single-owner dynasties refusing to give leftists an outlet. It’s because leftist ideology is unpopular and can’t support itself.
Digital multiplexing and direct satellite broadcasting makes leftist assertions for “fairness” absurd when considered in conjunction with the number of terrestrial broadcast outlets available.
“Broadcasting is not a zero-sum game, with one use depriving others of a same resource overall.”
Yes it is. Their uses are rivalrous. Sure two broadcasters can be in different geographical areas, but these are are going to be different resources. And its going to speech restrictions on the power of their broadcasts which keep them separate.
Most people understand that the tuple of frequency,power and location are what we are talking about as the scarce resources. If we give rush limbaugh broadcast rights over all channels, over the entire atlantic, thats not the same as giving all channels over the US to al franken.
I can’t believe we’ve gotten this far in the discussion and this has to be spelled out.
Strawmen abound.
No one is saying “let’s give all channels to Rush Limbaugh.”
It is, rather, “Let’s let listeners decide what they are willing to listen to rather than allow government to try to force citizens to listen to what they have already thoroughly rejected with a free choice.”
I can’t believe we’ve gotten this far in the discussion and this has to be spelled out.
Again.
“No one is saying “let’s give all channels to Rush Limbaugh.†”
Me neither. It was a hypothetical to educate you on the fact that geographical location matters. That that’s the markets we’re talking about. At a given geographical location, there are only so many broadcast frequencies. So when you say it is not zero sum, in fact it is quite the opposite: If you want to start a radio station in NYC, another one will have to shut down. That’s very different than blogs or newspapers.
Then again when it comes time to talk about decency regulations, we all get reminded that in fact people are NOT forced to listen to this junk, and they can just turn it off.
Interestingly enough, the FCC has been trying to roll out low-power FM for years. This service would provide TRUE community-oriented radio, but lobbyists have been stalling it. One of the major opponents: NPR.
If you give money to NPR, you might consider asking them why they’re afraid of competition?
Really? There are no open frequencies? Not a one?
And, again, why does this make it the government’s role to determine what’s available to listen to? What’s next? Federal regulations on what books can be in a library? Or, hey, why not have regulations on what books can be in a bookstore? There’s only so much room for bookstores, and only so much room inside a bookstore — in order to sell one book, another has to be removed from the shelf!
Or you can let people decide what they want to hear and read and watch.
Why should unpopular ideas be subsidized by government force?
Most people understand that the tuple of frequency,power and location are what we are talking about as the scarce resources.
Which is why the marketplace should decide how it’s used. Not you.
I am not positing similarities between printed media and wireles media.
In a given market there may be hundreds of channels of broadcasting avialable for use for a given format. If the format fails to draw listeners, the broadcasting channel goes silent and another format may buy the license.
Liberal talk radio failed to draw listeners. It’s not being silenced by unavailability of channels. It was silenced by its own unviability. And, after all, the USSC said that if it’s not viable, it can be killed.
It is not an issue caused by limited resources. It’s an issue caused by a bankrupt philosophy, a museum of dusty ideas, a format subsuming hatefulness, anger, unhappiness, limitations, and pessimism as its art. A format (or, yes, ideology) rejected by a listening audience does not deserve support by government fiat, which is what the fairness doctrine, a supremely ironic concept, dictates.
“Really? There are no open frequencies? Not a one?”
Is this really a surprise that a place as dense and as large as NYC would be saturated? Technically all frequencies are open. But big government will suppress your speech if you try broadcasting on some of them. Who made that government’s job?
“And, again, why does this make it the government’s role to determine what’s available to listen to? ”
Its what allows the government to have a role. Not what makes it so. What makes it so is that we’ve decided we don’t want just market decisions to use this scarce resource. We have other goals we want to achieve, such as the spread of information from diverse and antagonistic forces.
Its not clear though, that successful commercial broadcasters aren’t being subsidized either. Are they paying market price for the spectrum? Who would they pay it to? everyone else who might want to broadcast in that spectrum? Everyone whose houses they want to beam into?
“There’s only so much room for bookstores, and only so much room inside a bookstore  in order to sell one book, another has to be removed from the shelf!”
All available bookstore space has not been allocated. Of course, there is something special about the frequency scarcity: that it requires very tight coordination by the government for it to work.
“Which is why the marketplace should decide how it’s used. Not you.”
How so? Who should pay who for a license? Should the government pay for licenses for its frequency uses (military, safety, police, etc..)?
Markel is actus with a middle name. The only point where they differ is that from time to time, markel will address a point, briefly, before throwing out non sequeters, strawmen, and running around with the goalposts.
Markel is actus with a different name. No clue how different morphed into middle in the prior post.
We have here either an asshole libertarian, or an asshole contemporary liberal, here, ladies and gentlemen; disregard it. It engages in a masturbatory motivation (I hope), or it is really simply whacko.
“simply whacko.”
Weren’t you the one that tried to tell me that there isn’t scarcity because one can just broadcast somewhere else? Whacko indeed.
You’re just being defensive because everyone thinks you’re a stupid socialist.
Redundancy alert.
My bad. Good catch.
Notice how non-defensive that was?