I’m left with the quandary of how to re-introduce old fashioned notions of fairness, diversity and, most important, quality back into the market.

Who defines “quality” in political speech, doma?

In the meantime, I’m bothered by talk of market forces as if those forces were sacred. Market forces are created by the manipulation of advertising and other forms of seduction; they don’t spring up out of nowhere.

Consumers play the role of sheep, but the shepherds take no responsibility for where they lead the flock. Sheep just eat grass, and they don’t ask questions about the quality of the grass.

The result is a mindless unqestioning market force.
That doesn’t sound like what should be leading a society to me.

I’m left with the quandary of how to re-introduce old fashioned notions of fairness, diversity and, most important, quality back into the market.

If you adhere strictly to the rules of consumer demand, there may not be enough demad to make quality profitable. Does that mean, then, that it should not be available at all? Or should quality be available only to those moneyed enough to pay a premium price for private progaramming?

Without access to ‘free speech’ in the media for unprofitable iideas we are all complicit in the downard spiral of our culture.

That’s where I’m stuck

You’ve got that precisely backwards; as profits shrink, the pressure is toward media consolidation, not ownership diversification.

That wasn’t my point. My point was that broadcast media, unlike 50 years ago, is a continually shrinking source of news and information when compared to cable, satellite and the internet. It simply doesn’t have the influence it once did.

And even if your characterization is correct, then what has that do to with the fairness doctrine? If media conglomerates are becoming too consolidated, then there are measure available to prevent or reverse that from happening short of government enforcement of “fairness.”

Doma,

If market forces in the media work, then how do you explain the claims of liberal bias throughout the media?
TOX news was not created by market forces, the creaor was Murdoch and his money.

Murdoch certainly created Fox news, but it success is driven by market forces, not some infinite pool of money Murdoch pours into it. For all his faults, he’s a shrewd businessman and he saw an untapped market and exploited it. Besides, I’m not really sure what the point of the Fox example is since the Fairness Doctrine would do nothing to Fox since it is a cable outlet.

Furthermore, like I said above, if one believes the problem is too much consolidation in the broadcast media, there are remedies for that.

I had started to address some of your comments earlier, but deleted them because I felt I was wandering by going into my experience with talk radio when I’m long-winded enough. I do, however, listen to talk radio. When in the car, I flip back and forth between two NPR stations and the FM talk radio here. With the hours I am driving that means I hear Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Bill Bennett, and Laura Ingraham. I confess that I don’t make it very long in the shows anymore before I get mad and switch stations. I used to listen to G. Gordon Liddy pretty frequently during a commute when I lived in Tennessee and I could listen to it a good bit more. Sometimes he would have sessions on gun recs, car repair, and other non-political items that were interesting. The point: I do listen to talk radio and perhaps I would listen to more than 5 minute blurps if I had a longer temper or I agreed more often with what was being said. (Actually, that’s not quite right. I don’t have to agree with what is being said at all. I just have to believe that the person is arguing genuinely and with respect for other opinions. The latter is particularly rare.)

That said, I don’t know if I would listen to Ed Schultz or Stephanie Miller. The reason, though, is an odd one. I hate being pigeon-holed or being told what to do. The problem I had with the concept of Air America was that the goal wasn’t to put the best and brightest and most entertaining radio hosts on the air. It was to put a liberal radio show on the air. And then I as a self-identified liberal am now supposed to do what I’m told and go listen and become a dittohead of some liberal talking piece. Not into that.

Anyway, assuming Ed Schultz is in fact good at his job and since I do like talk radio and listen regularly, perhaps I will give him a try and be pleased.

You are exactly right, however, that I don’t traditionally seek out political shows to listen to. If I’m in the car and a show comes on, I will give it a try. That’s pretty much it.

Your suggestion about ‘trust-busting’ is good.
I’m not sure how easy it would be to accomplish, though.. I notice how long it’s been since the last time a monopoly was challenged.

The same corporations that buy up media outlets also own companies with lucrative governemtn contracts. Needless to say, they also finance powerful lobbyists. It’s one hand constantly washing the other, it seems to me.

If market forces in the media work, then how do you explain the claims of liberal bias throughout the media?
TOX news was not created by market forces, the creaor was Murdoch and his money.

I’m not really concerned with talk radio, per se.
I’m concerned with the state of media, in general, and the access to airwaves by diverse groups and individuals.

It’s the influence of big money,and consolidated
power, in politics and in the media that I oppose.
I don’t know any other way to combat the current trend than to bring back the concept of the public interest and promote diversity. I know that means involving the government (which I don’t like) and I know about the problems experienced in the past
with the idea.
But I sure don’t like what’s going on.
And I sure don’t want to give up and accept that Paris Hilton stories are the best we can hope for.

Also, the fall back on consumer demand works no better than the market forces explanation.
A corporation that buys up media outlets also creates consumer demand by advertising and by the seducion of applealing to the lowest common denominator in taste and intelligence.

I’m enraged by the notion that money is the only way to access free speech on the airwaves or access a diverse selection of news outlets and entertainment.

I’m open to other,better suggestions about combatting the sorry state of the media of all kinds.

And does everyone on a political blog have to attack, attack, attack all day long? Why not just say, “hey, paca, I’m in Hawaii and those shows are on stations X, Y, and Z”? or “I did a search and you can find those shows. Just to let you know. See ya.” Instead we get insinuations that I am a complete fool or purposefully lying to everone.

It is simply a case of not being able to win in the marketplace fairly, so they want special rules to compensate for their shortcomings.

We see that elsewhere already, and it leads to an amusing glimpse at the future as well.

Since they cannot always rely on misusing the courts to get the desired results, this is what more radical Democrats may attempt one day with elections, since radical leftism loses elections. (That’s one reason the Left seeks to legislate through the judiciary instead.)

Maybe that’s something that Superdestroyer was anticipating with his vision of an eventual one-party Democratic People’s Republic of the USA. For every office and issue, there one day will be one (1) box to check, one (1) candidate, one (1) party affiliation. (Maybe others can be allowed, but kept off the printed ballot, write-in only. That’ll do for starters!)

I don’t see how that would affect liberal vs. conservative content though.

As to the part about effects on local ownership; here I think we have an effect that could be reversed by “trust busting” (which is probably not the correct technical term but the concept applies). Owners are now allowed to own more stations than they previously had been, and I do think that has led to too much concentration of ownership and has decreased diversity.

And the thing is, the fairness doctrine could only regulate federally broadcast media, which is, frankly, a shrinking enterprise in an internet-enabled world.

You’ve got that precisely backwards; as profits shrink, the pressure is toward media consolidation, not ownership diversification.

How do market forces “not work?” If there was a market for liberal talk radio, someone would service that market. The example of San Francisco has already been given.

And the thing is, the fairness doctrine could only regulate federally broadcast media, which is, frankly, a shrinking enterprise in an internet-enabled world. Radio stations, though they carry nationwide programs like Rush, serve local markets. The fairness doctrine would be like forcing a rural country radio station to play Tupac half the time. It will kill those local stations and will ultimately only ensure Sirius and XM are successes by driving Rush, Hannity and others to satellite, which I guess is the purpose.

I’m not going ‘there’ willingly, myself.
I don’t like the idea of putting the governmnet in charge.
When something is cearly wrong, however, I’m not willing to throw up my hands and do nothing..

I would welcome any better suggestion.

In the last 12 years I’ve lived in Tennessee and Hawaii, a red state and a blue state. Why have I never heard a single liberal talk show ever? Let’s take Ed Schultz. Again, never heard him, but supposedly he is one liberal host who knows his job and does it well. He may or may not be as amazing as Rush, but he’s got to be as good as Michael Medved, who I can listen to every day here in the blue state of Hawaii where a good 70% of the local legislature identifies as Democratic. If this is right about the Ed Shultz show, then there are at least a few decent liberal radio shows. Quality then is not the problem.

Is it the size of the potential audience? It’s hard to believe that is it since again most people in Hawaii are Dems, not Republicans. So the local conservative talk radio is actually targeted to the minority political view. Even in Tennessee, a very “red” state, some 40% are Dems and there are certainly niche music stations with a far smaller potential listening audience than that.

This means it’s not either quality product or market share. Something else is affecting this. I do not imagine a grand conspiracy. But the normal comments of, “there’s no market and all the liberal shows are lame” don’t really explain what’s going on.

Okay, government can’t be trusted. The maket doesn’t work.
I would really like to hear a workable suggestion.
Or do we just give up and let the money bags rule the air?

This is like the Immigration Bill. Everybody hates it, but no one is suggesting a solution that is. yes,.fair, or even just better. r.

Very natural marketing decision. It’s an extremely rare music station that has the best rap for one show followed by the best classical followed by the best country. People want to get the same thing day in, day out. However, the result is that to get pretty much any liberal political content, you would have to have an entire station devoted to it. Since there’s only a small number of high quality liberal shows so far, you get pretty much nothing. In fact, I’ve never heard a single one of the liberal talk shows that are mentioned sometimes here – no Stephanie Miller, no Al Franken, no Ed Schulz.

I am not expressing an opinion on the Fairness Doctrine as I’m not educated enough concerning it to contribute productively. Just stating an additional point. There’s sort of a critical mass element to hearing content of different types.

Which means any crap that anyone could ever think? As if there are no other mechanisms to prevent monopolies of markets. It also ignores popular liberal hosts who are doing just fine because they are good at there job. Do you people even listen to the radio? Are you really desperate because you can’t find a voice on the air sympathetic to your lefty leanings???? Or would you never listen anyway and just want to shut it up because those on the right find it useful??

By the way Clear Channel owns 960 KQKE San fran. Here is a shock, they air liberal talk because they want to make money.
Ed Schultz
Stephanie Miller
Bill Press
Thom Hartmann

It was a idiotic hypothetical.