Right Wing Talk Radio is Afraid of "Fairness"

[rastaman]

More Red Herring propaganda from conservatives are continuing their fearmongering on behalf of Rightwing Talk Radio. It really comes down to fairness. This is what conservative-rightwing radio station, talk radio personalities and Bed wetting listeners are truly afraid of.


Forget the Doctrine; But Get Back to Fairness

Article by: By Bill Press
Posted April 8, 2009


Today, talk radio is virtually a right-wing monopoly, where seldom is heard a progressive word. In many cities considered bastions of liberalism—Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Providence, R.I., Boston, Atlanta, and Washington—there is not one progressive talk radio station. In fact, there are some 2,000 commercial talk radio stations in the country, of which, at best, only 60 broad­cast progressive talk. That imbalance must not be allowed to continue.

What’s the answer? Believe it or not, the answer is not to bring back the fairness doctrine. And nobody, in fact, is calling for doing so.

The fairness doctrine was in place from 1949 to 1987. Given all the changes in means of communication since then, bringing back the fairness doctrine today makes as much sense as bringing back black and white television.

But the issue of “fairness” is still rel­evant. For one paramount reason that conservatives conveniently ignore: We’re talking about public airwaves. Broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And, according to the terms of that—free!—li­cense, they have only one obligation: “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.”

This point cannot be disputed: Station owners are not operating “in the public interest” when they offer only conservative talk.

The questioin and debate that is missing is how to provide some balance to the public airwaves, if not by restoring the fairness doctrine? That’s the challenge facing the FCC and Congress. The answer is both enforcement of standards for ownership and oversight guaranteeing that public airwaves are, in fact, operat­ed in the public interest.

On ownership, the current system—where three companies control the majority of radio stations as measured by revenue in any given market—must be changed. National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 per­cent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations. Locally, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations. And, to avoid a clear conflict of interest, own­ers of the radio networks that provide syndicated programming should be banned from owning the stations on which those shows are broadcast. This simple, common-sense measure would return the program decision-making process to the local manager from the corporate hack at headquarters whose sole interest is the bottom line, not the public’s interest.

On oversight, the FCC should take measures to ensure local needs are being met by providing a license to radio broad­casters for no more than three years at a time and by requiring licensees to show regularly that they are operating in the public interest.

The aim of these standards is three­fold: to restore balance to the public air­waves, to provide listeners choice in talk radio programming, and to encourage competition in broadcasting. Afraid of competition on the airwaves, conservatives make three amazingly lame arguments against any action by the FCC or Congress.

Right wing conservatives argue, first, that progressive talk radio has been tried and failed. Wrong. As pointed out above, progressive talk radio doesn’t even exist in many major markets. If it has never even been heard, you can’t say it didn’t work.

Where progressive talk shows are broad­cast, on the other hand, there are solid success stories. In Palm Springs, Calif., KPTR AM 1340 doubled its ratings from fall 2007 to fall 2008. In Minnesota, in­dependent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF 950 AM profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM 92.1 FM just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk programming from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1.

Next, opponents of fairness in broadcasting argue that nobody needs progressive talk radio, because listeners can always find liberal content on National Public Radio. Now that’s laugh-out-loud funny! There’s a clear difference between commercial talk and public broadcasting. NPR’s laudable but painfully laborious effort to show both sides of every issue is a far cry from both conservative and lib­eral talk radio.

Finally, conservative rightwing talk radio argues that nobody wants to listen to progressive talk. Wrong again. Just look at the last elec­tion. Fifty-three percent of American voters supported Barack Obama. Because of its predominantly right-wing content, that means talk radio today is not serving 53 percent of Americans. Again, experience has shown that, given the opportunity, progressive talkers Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, and I (Bill Press) can more than hold our own in competition with conservative talkers.

In the end, that’s all progressives are asking the FCC and Congress to provide today: opportunities for more competition in the open marketplace. So why all the fuss? Isn’t that what conservatives are supposed to believe in?
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opini...ill-press.html

[alkemical]

use existing threads

[Dukes]

Am 760 in Denver is doing fairly well I think, for me it's tough to listen to but I know other people who listen to it. It's not Conservative talk radio's fault that liberal stations have a hard time compeating. Maybe they should concentrate on their content and creating a viable radio show rather than blaming someone else. Just a thought.

[cutthemdown]

why not just start some liberal talk shows? If people listen and they make revenue then fine.

The problem is liberals like to listen to right wing talk show and conservatives do also.

So really liberal radio just isn't a money maker. Conservatives won't tune in, and either will like 50% of the liberals. Those liberals have more fun listening to Rehab Rush then they do Rosie Odonell.

[rastaman]

use existing threads

Get Bent "Dudly Do-Right"!

[rastaman]

Am 760 in Denver is doing fairly well I think, for me it's tough to listen to but I know other people who listen to it. It's not Conservative talk radio's fault that liberal stations have a hard time compeating. Maybe they should concentrate on their content and creating a viable radio show rather than blaming someone else. Just a thought.

Conservative talk love monopoly's when it benefits their bottom line and agenda. The conservative strawman arguement that liberal talk can't survive or can't expand is simply a red herring and pure propaganda from the right wing shills.

Where progressive talk shows are broad­cast, on the other hand, there are solid success stories. In Palm Springs, Calif., KPTR AM 1340 doubled its ratings from fall 2007 to fall 2008. In Minnesota, in­dependent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF 950 AM profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM 92.1 FM just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk programming from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1.

When the dust all settles, in comes down to FAIRNESS. We’re talking about public airwaves. Broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And, according to the terms of that—free!—li­cense, they have only one obligation: “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.”

This point cannot be disputed: Station owners are not operating “in the public interest” when they offer only conservative talk.

The questioin and debate that is missing is how to provide some balance to the public airwaves, if not by restoring the fairness doctrine? That’s the challenge facing the FCC and Congress. The answer is both enforcement of standards for ownership and oversight guaranteeing that public airwaves are, in fact, operat­ed in the public interest.

[Bob]

Whether it is fairness, or localism, or equal minority ownership it does not matter, this admin does not and cannot have alternative views and they will do what they have to, to shut them up. Fairness means NPR, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS -- after all they just report the news...(as seen by Socialists) and as "we are all Socialists now" they are mainstream.

The new un-consitutionally appointed Czar over the FCC has said in previous written materals to forget about the fairness doctrine -- and proposes another way to shut them down.

[alkemical]

Get Bent "Dudly Do-Right"!

I would think you guys would understand that the fragmentation of information - as in to not stay on point - would drive a better understanding of the arena of media, and how to correlate the data.

don't get pissy with me because you are a whore.

[rastaman]

I would think you guys would understand that the fragmentation of information - as in to not stay on point - would drive a better understanding of the arena of media, and how to correlate the data.

don't get pissy with me because you are a whore.

Don't get pissed at me b/c you come from a "Long-Row-of Idiots" you obtuse primadonna.

Leave your ego at the door why don'tcha!!!

[Rohirrim]

I would think you guys would understand that the fragmentation of information - as in to not stay on point - would drive a better understanding of the arena of media, and how to correlate the data.

don't get pissy with me because you are a whore.

It's too early in the day to be this loaded.

[alkemical]

Don't get pissed at me b/c you come from a "Long-Row-of Idiots" you obtuse primadonna.

Leave your ego at the door why don'tcha!!!

I laugh at your hypocrisy.

[Bronx33]

Today, local and international television news is virtually a left-wing monopoly, where seldom is heard a conservative word, so they are complaining about not ruling the airwaves too? wow this reminds me of something i just can't put my finger on it.

[alkemical]

It's too early in the day to be this loaded.


Ahhh, the old "insult people if you don't understand it game". Cool Ro~

[Bronx33]

I laugh at your hypocrisy.

As soon as they resort to name calling they have lost the argument and offer nothing else constructive to validate their point.

[SPfloppy]

use existing threads


Thanx can we get a mod to close one of these?

[alkemical]

Exactly -

See - by each new thread - and not putting in the "right wing radio/how long will it last" thread, it the exact model that is used by the media as a whole - to fragment information, so the majority of people don't correlate it. It's sort of like enabling or enhancing our ADD nature in the information world we live in.

What this does - is shift discussion from a thread where you can expand and expound on the mechanisms of media, language and how it's impacting us, into trivial little threads, which the most common denominators reappear, thus no further progress is made delving into a topic and understanding how this mode of communications work.

You couple that with the narcissism that the online world fosters - and everybody has a voice, but thinks they aren't being heard, thus they keep turning the volume up...to a point where nobody actually listens.

There's even more depth to it than that, but that's a basic starting point.

[Rohirrim]

Ahhh, the old "insult people if you don't understand it game". Cool Ro~

Insult? That was a joke. Touchy, touchy.

[SPfloppy]

Close this thread, clap clap clap clap clap, close this thread, clap clap clap clap clap

[rastaman]

Whether it is fairness, or localism, or equal minority ownership it does not matter, this admin does not and cannot have alternative views and they will do what they have to, to shut them up. Fairness means NPR, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS -- after all they just report the news...(as seen by Socialists) and as "we are all Socialists now" they are mainstream.

The new un-consitutionally appointed Czar over the FCC has said in previous written materals to forget about the fairness doctrine -- and proposes another way to shut them down.

No one is calling for the return of the "Fairnes Doctrine" from 1949-1987. However, there is a call for a return to "Fairness" for a 21st Century model.

First we are talking about public airwaves. Broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And by signing on to the the licensing agreement to use the Air Waves they agreed to one obligation and that is to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

Truth be told, station owners are not operating “in the public interest” when they offer only conservative talk. Thats not why conservative talk were given their license in the first place.

As we speak, you have three companies controlling the majority of radio stations as measured by revenue in any given market—must be changed. National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 per­cent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations. Locally, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations.

To avoid a clear conflict of interest, own­ers of the radio networks that provide syndicated programming should be banned from owning the stations on which those shows are broadcast. This simple, common-sense measure would return the program decision-making process to the local manager from the corporate hack at headquarters whose sole interest is the bottom line, not the public’s interest.

[rastaman]

Ahhh, the old "insult people if you don't understand it game". Cool Ro~

Ah yes amesj523......you have never insulted people have you!!! What's it like to be perfect????

[rastaman]

Close this thread, clap clap clap clap clap, close this thread, clap clap clap clap clap

Whats wrong, you don't like the fact that the Right-Wing Propaganda Straw-Dog Red Herring on Fairness and Monopoly driven Conservative talk show stations have been exposed!!! Shut down or the truth may come out.

You have no shame!

[rastaman]

As soon as they resort to name calling they have lost the argument and offer nothing else constructive to validate their point.

Well I'm sure you are well versed with name calling when you have nothing constructive to validate your point. Should we do a search on your past name calling incidents???

[W*GS]

Once you insist on "fairness" (a vague concept if there ever was one), why limit it to just "progressives" getting their quota of air time? How about libertarians? Socialists? Communists? Nazis? Anarchists? Fascists? Greens?

Nope.

The lefties are just whining. Nothing more.

[alkemical]

Ah yes amesj523......you have never insulted people have you!!! What's it like to be perfect????

I see my point is still valid.

[rastaman]

Once you insist on "fairness" (a vague concept if there ever was one), why limit it to just "progressives" getting their quota of air time? How about libertarians? Socialists? Communists? Nazis? Anarchists? Fascists? Greens?

Nope.

The lefties are just whining. Nothing more.

How about subscribing to "Build-It" and "They-Will-Come"! Whats so difficult about that? One thing is for sure, if you have radio stations colluding and creating monopolies to suit their ideologies and agendas......how does that serve the "Public Good"?

[rastaman]

I see my point is still valid.

How is your point valid????

[alkemical]

How about subscribing to "Build-It" and "They-Will-Come"! Whats so difficult about that? One thing is for sure, if you have radio stations colluding and creating monopolies to suit their ideologies and agendas......how does that serve the "Public Good"?

Air America failed, right? So then..they built it - people didn't come - and if people won't support it - then why should it exist?

[alkemical]

How is your point valid????

Nothing new.

[rastaman]

Air America failed, right? So then..they built it - people didn't come - and if people won't support it - then why should it exist?

Air America hasn't FAILED!!! Sure they had a Bankruptcy.....But their still going strong.

http://airamerica.com/

Also, where progressive talk shows are broad­cast, on the other hand, there are solid success stories. In Palm Springs, Calif., KPTR AM 1340 doubled its ratings from fall 2007 to fall 2008. In Minnesota, in­dependent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF 950 AM profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM 92.1 FM just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk programming from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1.

[rastaman]

Nothing new.

Okay talk in code/symantecs....cool.

[Bronx33]

Well I'm sure you are well versed with name calling when you have nothing constructive to validate your point. Should we do a search on your past name calling incidents???


Ummm yaaaaaaaa in here iam civil and i go out of my way to avoid name calling, like i said ( it removes your credibility) and makes it hard to take a person serious but please don't let that stop ya.

[alkemical]

Okay talk in code/symantecs....cool.

Go back to my post on the first page, towards the bottom - where i outline what happens with the fragmentation of information.

Exactly what i said, has happened on this thread.

[Bronx33]

I also heard left wing radio was boring and that's why it fails.

[rastaman]

Ummm yaaaaaaaa in here iam civil and i go out of my way to avoid name calling, like i said ( it removes your credibility) and makes it hard to take a person serious but please don't let that stop ya.

Bronx33 are you saying you never came off negatively toward a fellow poster out of frustration, anger, mis-understanding?

[Bronx33]

Bronx33 are you saying you never came off negatively toward a fellow poster out of frustration, anger, mis-understanding?


I don't call fellow posters names here in this room.

[rastaman]

I also heard left wing radio was boring and that's why it fails.

Bronx, you couldn't be further from the TRUTH! Where progressive talk shows are broad¬cast, on the other hand, there are solid success stories. In Palm Springs, Calif., KPTR AM 1340 doubled its ratings from fall 2007 to fall 2008. In Minnesota, in¬dependent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF 950 AM profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM 92.1 FM just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk programming from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1.

Again, experience has shown that, given the opportunity, progressive talkers Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, and Bill Press can more than hold our own in competition with conservative talkers.

[Bronx33]

Bronx, you couldn't be further from the TRUTH! Where progressive talk shows are broad¬cast, on the other hand, there are solid success stories. In Palm Springs, Calif., KPTR AM 1340 doubled its ratings from fall 2007 to fall 2008. In Minnesota, in¬dependent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF 950 AM profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM 92.1 FM just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk programming from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1.

Again, experience has shown that, given the opportunity, progressive talkers Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, and Bill Press can more than hold our own in competition with conservative talkers.


I said ( i heard) :clown:

[Rohirrim]

Ah yes amesj523......you have never insulted people have you!!! What's it like to be perfect????

He even neg repped me and asked for my address so he could sue me. :rofl:

[SPfloppy]

Air America hasn't FAILED!!! Sure they had a Bankruptcy.....But their still going strong.

http://airamerica.com/

Also, where progressive talk shows are broad­cast, on the other hand, there are solid success stories. In Palm Springs, Calif., KPTR AM 1340 doubled its ratings from fall 2007 to fall 2008. In Minnesota, in­dependent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF 950 AM profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM 92.1 FM just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk programming from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1.

Ah so if they are succeeding so admirabily why are we discussing possible legislation to slow down thier competitors?

[Rohirrim]

The snag is that the airwaves are public property. I am also opposed to censorship, but to simply allow the free market/profit model to dominate how shares of those airwaves are allotted can lead to some pretty bad outcomes. Anyway, from what I've heard, Rush's show is given away for free in a lot of markets. How do you compete with that?

[Garcia Bronco]

More Red Herring propaganda from conservatives are continuing their fearmongering on behalf of Rightwing Talk Radio. It really comes down to fairness. This is what conservative-rightwing radio station, talk radio personalities and Bed wetting listeners are truly afraid of.


Forget the Doctrine; But Get Back to Fairness

Article by: By Bill Press
Posted April 8, 2009


Today, talk radio is virtually a right-wing monopoly, where seldom is heard a progressive word. In many cities considered bastions of liberalism—Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Providence, R.I., Boston, Atlanta, and Washington—there is not one progressive talk radio station. In fact, there are some 2,000 commercial talk radio stations in the country, of which, at best, only 60 broad­cast progressive talk. That imbalance must not be allowed to continue.

What’s the answer? Believe it or not, the answer is not to bring back the fairness doctrine. And nobody, in fact, is calling for doing so.

The fairness doctrine was in place from 1949 to 1987. Given all the changes in means of communication since then, bringing back the fairness doctrine today makes as much sense as bringing back black and white television.

But the issue of “fairness” is still rel­evant. For one paramount reason that conservatives conveniently ignore: We’re talking about public airwaves. Broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And, according to the terms of that—free!—li­cense, they have only one obligation: “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.”

This point cannot be disputed: Station owners are not operating “in the public interest” when they offer only conservative talk.

The questioin and debate that is missing is how to provide some balance to the public airwaves, if not by restoring the fairness doctrine? That’s the challenge facing the FCC and Congress. The answer is both enforcement of standards for ownership and oversight guaranteeing that public airwaves are, in fact, operat­ed in the public interest.

On ownership, the current system—where three companies control the majority of radio stations as measured by revenue in any given market—must be changed. National radio ownership by any one entity should not exceed 5 per­cent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations. Locally, no one entity should control more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations. And, to avoid a clear conflict of interest, own­ers of the radio networks that provide syndicated programming should be banned from owning the stations on which those shows are broadcast. This simple, common-sense measure would return the program decision-making process to the local manager from the corporate hack at headquarters whose sole interest is the bottom line, not the public’s interest.

On oversight, the FCC should take measures to ensure local needs are being met by providing a license to radio broad­casters for no more than three years at a time and by requiring licensees to show regularly that they are operating in the public interest.

The aim of these standards is three­fold: to restore balance to the public air­waves, to provide listeners choice in talk radio programming, and to encourage competition in broadcasting. Afraid of competition on the airwaves, conservatives make three amazingly lame arguments against any action by the FCC or Congress.

Right wing conservatives argue, first, that progressive talk radio has been tried and failed. Wrong. As pointed out above, progressive talk radio doesn’t even exist in many major markets. If it has never even been heard, you can’t say it didn’t work.

Where progressive talk shows are broad­cast, on the other hand, there are solid success stories. In Palm Springs, Calif., KPTR AM 1340 doubled its ratings from fall 2007 to fall 2008. In Minnesota, in­dependent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF 950 AM profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM 92.1 FM just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk programming from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1.

Next, opponents of fairness in broadcasting argue that nobody needs progressive talk radio, because listeners can always find liberal content on National Public Radio. Now that’s laugh-out-loud funny! There’s a clear difference between commercial talk and public broadcasting. NPR’s laudable but painfully laborious effort to show both sides of every issue is a far cry from both conservative and lib­eral talk radio.

Finally, conservative rightwing talk radio argues that nobody wants to listen to progressive talk. Wrong again. Just look at the last elec­tion. Fifty-three percent of American voters supported Barack Obama. Because of its predominantly right-wing content, that means talk radio today is not serving 53 percent of Americans. Again, experience has shown that, given the opportunity, progressive talkers Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, and I (Bill Press) can more than hold our own in competition with conservative talkers.

In the end, that’s all progressives are asking the FCC and Congress to provide today: opportunities for more competition in the open marketplace. So why all the fuss? Isn’t that what conservatives are supposed to believe in?
http://www.usnews.com/articles/opini...ill-press.html

Fair is subjective. What's objective is the freedom of expression for all.

[SPfloppy]

Whats wrong, you don't like the fact that the Right-Wing Propaganda Straw-Dog Red Herring on Fairness and Monopoly driven Conservative talk show stations have been exposed!!! Shut down or the truth may come out.

You have no shame!


Bro you missed the boat on that one. All I wanted was 1 thread on this subject not the 2 or 3 at a time

[W*GS]

Why limit it to just "progressives" getting their quota of air time? How about libertarians? Socialists? Communists? Nazis? Anarchists? Fascists? Greens?

[SJ Bronco]

If you just have Itunes, you can get any point of view you want. I subscribe to atheist radio as well as many others. I bet you would all be shocked to know that we have a thriving progressive station here in nocal...hehehehe

[rastaman]

Fair is subjective. What's objective is the freedom of expression for all.

Nice sound byte Garcia......are you sure you have nothing else to add???

[rastaman]

Why limit it to just "progressives" getting their quota of air time? How about libertarians? Socialists? Communists? Nazis? Anarchists? Fascists? Greens?

Do you personally know of any? Besides only you and your ilk are talking about "Limitations". Do you think you can train your brain matter to think inclusion and expansion vs collusion and monopolies. I know I am asking a lot.

[Bronx33]

Ah so if they are succeeding so admirabily why are we discussing possible legislation to slow down thier competitors?


If they really have an intention of being fair then they would want to apply this "fairness doctrine" to all media not just talk radio.

[Dukes]

When the dust all settles, in comes down to FAIRNESS. We’re talking about public airwaves. Broadcast corporations don’t own the airwaves; they only receive a license from the Federal Communications Commission—free!—to broadcast over those airwaves. And, according to the terms of that—free!—li­cense, they have only one obligation: “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.”

This is where you just don't get it. Lets say 850 KOA in Denver has an open time slot from 9-12am, maybe Mike Rosin retires someday. I guarantee you that they will replace the prior show with one that generates revenue. Regardless of the content. You believe there always has to be a man behind the scenes controling what's put on the air, when in fact it's the LISTENERS who determine what programs are being broadcast. Get a clue.

[Dukes]

If they really have an intention of being fair then they would want to apply this "fairness doctrine" to all media not just talk radio.

Don't worry, the fairness doctrine won't apply to the liberal dominated tv and newspaper news. All is good.

[Bronx33]

This is where you just don't get it. Lets say 850 KOA in Denver has an open time slot from 9-12am, maybe Mike Rosin retires someday. I guarantee you that they will replace the prior show with one that generates revenue. Regardless of the content. You believe there always has to be a man behind the scenes controling what's put on the air, when in fact it's the LISTENERS who determine what programs are being broadcast. Get a clue.

May god strike you down!!

[Dukes]

Hey if you can't beat them, shut them up. Right?

[Dukes]

May god strike you down!!

Haha, I can't listen to him anymore. But there's nothing better than when Steve the Socialist in the Springs calls. Ha!

[Bronx33]

Haha, I can't listen to him anymore. But there's nothing better than when Steve the Socialist in the Springs calls. Ha!


Mike can tear libs apart it's almost not even fair and why can't you listen to him?

[Dukes]

Mike can tear libs apart it's almost not even fair and why can't you listen to him?

Don't have time to listen while I work.

[rastaman]

This is where you just don't get it. Lets say 850 KOA in Denver has an open time slot from 9-12am, maybe Mike Rosin retires someday. I guarantee you that they will replace the prior show with one that generates revenue. Regardless of the content. You believe there always has to be a man behind the scenes controling what's put on the air, when in fact it's the LISTENERS who determine what programs are being broadcast. Get a clue.

What you are most misinformed about is the necessity to restore balance to the public air­waves, to provide listeners choice in talk radio programming, and to encourage competition in broadcasting. Afraid of competition on the airwaves, conservatives make three amazingly lame arguments against any action by the FCC or Congress.

Right wing conservatives argue, first, that progressive talk radio has been tried and failed. Wrong. As pointed out above, progressive talk radio doesn’t even exist in many major markets. If it has never even been heard, you can’t say it didn’t work.

Where progressive talk shows are broad­cast, on the other hand, there are solid success stories. In Palm Springs, Calif., KPTR AM 1340 doubled its ratings from fall 2007 to fall 2008. In Minnesota, in­dependent owner Janet Robert has operated KTNF 950 AM profitably for five years. In Madison, Wis., WXXM 92.1 FM just scored its highest ratings ever. And KPOJ in Portland, Ore., soared with progressive talk programming from No. 23 in market ratings to No. 1.

Next, opponents of fairness in broadcasting argue that nobody needs progressive talk radio, because listeners can always find liberal content on National Public Radio. Now that’s laugh-out-loud funny! There’s a clear difference between commercial talk and public broadcasting. NPR’s laudable but painfully laborious effort to show both sides of every issue is a far cry from both conservative and lib­eral talk radio.

Finally, conservative rightwing talk radio argues that nobody wants to listen to progressive talk. Wrong again. Just look at the last elec­tion. Fifty-three percent of American voters supported Barack Obama. Because of its predominantly right-wing content, that means talk radio today is not serving 53 percent of Americans. Again, experience has shown that, given the opportunity, progressive talkers Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, and Bill Press can more than hold our own in competition with conservative talkers.

[Dukes]

Don't you get tired of cutting a pasting the same **** over and over? You've said all that BS 5 other times. You can't possibly this stupid.

[rastaman]

Mike can tear libs apart it's almost not even fair and why can't you listen to him?

Mike Rosen would be schooled by Thom Hartmann.....it would be child abuse!:rofl:

[Bronx33]

Don't have time to listen while I work.

He has PODCASTS http://www.850koa.com/podcast/shows_rosen.xml

http://www.850koa.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=shows_rosen.xml

[Dukes]

What you are most misinformed about is the necessity to restore balance to the public air­waves.
Are you advocating the balance to newspapers and tv news? Didn't think so

to provide listeners choice in talk radio programming,.
They have the choice. Thanks to the internet and satellite radio.

[Dukes]

He has PODCASTS http://www.850koa.com/podcast/shows_rosen.xml

I guess listening to him would be better than reading the sewage coming from rastamans mouth

[Dukes]

Mike Rosen would be schooled by Thom Hartmann.....it would be child abuse!:rofl:

In order to get "schooled" you have to have facts. Which is why liberal talk is in the tank

[rastaman]

Don't you get tired of cutting a pasting the same **** over and over? You've said all that BS 5 other times. You can't possibly this stupid.

Don't you get tired of posting single line sound bytes to and use one last effort to save the propganda of right wing conservative is at risk by the so called Fairness Doctrine???

Besides the cut n paste is the true counter argument of returning balance to the air waves. Its you conservative talk fans who are trying to deny the truth.

[Bronx33]

Mike Rosen would be schooled by Thom Hartmann.....it would be child abuse!:rofl:

Well ima going to checkout your so called heavy weight though it doesn't look like he does much.

http://www.620kpoj.com/cc-common/podcast.html

[rastaman]

In order to get "schooled" you have to have facts. Which is why liberal talk is in the tank

Don't worry, Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhoades have the facts......how about Mike Rosen???? What does he bring to the table???:sunshine:

[Bronx33]

Don't worry, Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhoades have the facts......how about Mike Rosen???? What does he bring to the table???:sunshine:

Listen to the podcasts and see :thumbs:

[Dukes]

Don't worry, Thom Hartmann and Randi Rhoades have the facts......how about Mike Rosen???? What does he bring to the table???:sunshine:

Obviously you've never heard his show.

[Bronx33]

Obviously you've never heard his show.


Heres a little look into Thom Hartmann show:

listener calls, and speeding man claims he was chasing Bigfoot. :giggle:

[rastaman]

Obviously you've never heard his show.

Enlighten Me. Have you listened to Hartman and Rhoades?

[Dukes]

Enlighten Me. Have you listened to Hartman and Rhoades?

Briefly to Hartman, not sure what station in Denver he's on. Mainly David Serota and Ed Shultz on AM760

[rastaman]

Briefly to Hartman, not sure what station in Denver he's on. Mainly David Serota and Ed Shultz on AM760

Interesting.

[Dukes]

Here, have a listen.
http://www.850koa.com/pages/mikerosen.html

[Bronx33]

Briefly to Hartman, not sure what station in Denver he's on. Mainly David Serota and Ed Shultz on AM760


Speaking of serota mike anally probed him. ;D



http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KOA-AM/Rosen08-10-09-11AM.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=668&STATION_ID=KOA-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Mike_Rosen&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST_TITLE=The_Mike_Rosen_Show

[W*GS]

Do you personally know of any? Besides only you and your ilk are talking about "Limitations". Do you think you can train your brain matter to think inclusion and expansion vs collusion and monopolies. I know I am asking a lot.

You've got it exactly backwards. You're the limiter and have no intention of "inclusion and expansion".

You're intending to limit radio to two viewpoints - "right-wing" and "progressive", mandated by law. You have no interest in promoting any other viewpoints. You just want left-wingers to get on the radio. Since they're not as popular as right-wingers, you're whining.

Tough ****, sonny.

[SPfloppy]

You've got it exactly backwards. You're the limiter and have no intention of "inclusion and expansion".

You're intending to limit radio to two viewpoints - "right-wing" and "progressive", mandated by law. You have no interest in promoting any other viewpoints. You just want left-wingers to get on the radio. Since they're not as popular as right-wingers, you're whining.

Tough ****, sonny.

:sunshine: Love it

[Rohirrim]

You've got it exactly backwards. You're the limiter and have no intention of "inclusion and expansion".

You're intending to limit radio to two viewpoints - "right-wing" and "progressive", mandated by law. You have no interest in promoting any other viewpoints. You just want left-wingers to get on the radio. Since they're not as popular as right-wingers, you're whining.

Tough ****, sonny.

Yeah. It seems the more the policies of the Right fail and the more their numbers diminish, the louder they get.

Someday it will dawn on them that the ideology of Reagan was the politics of UBERFAIL. Then, they'll really get noisy.

I still think you can't beat, "Keep your stinking government hands off my Medicare!" ;D

[SPfloppy]

Our unmbers hav'nt deminished. We just don't hold the balance of power. Unless that is what you meant. If so I am sorry for taking it another way than you intended

[Rohirrim]

Our unmbers hav'nt deminished. We just don't hold the balance of power. Unless that is what you meant. If so I am sorry for taking it another way than you intended

No harm, no foul. Frankly, I don't know who holds the "balance of power" anymore. Obama doesn't seem to know either. I suspect it's a bunch of very large corporations. But I do think the Republican Party should adopt this as their motto:
Keep your stinking government hands off my Medicare!

It captures their essence. ;D

[footstepsfrom#27]

It boils down to 3 primary issues:

1) Is the choice of programming limited by market monopoly? In other words do political conservatives own most of the radio stations?

2) Is the inbalance illegal under the rules of the public charter they exist under?

3) Is there a viable market for left of center radio?

Those are the only issues. If any of these are "no", then I don't see it changing. Personally I don't really care. I don't have time to listen to the radio unless I'm in the car and I certainly wouldn't listen to politics of any kind on the radio, left or right. What politcal news and information I get I get from the web via RSS feeds, MP3 files or because I deliberately go looking for something I feel I need to know, in which case it's researach based not something the mass media puts out there. I'd say 90% of what I decide is worth spending time on is outside the mainstream press, and 99% of it's outside the talk radio genre. Internet radio is another story...I will listen to that while I'm doing other things on the web.

Besides...do we really WANT a liberal version of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin? Talk radio gas bags might be gas bags even if they vote Dem...don't you think? LOL

I mean it's all about ratings and crazy seems to sell.

[Bronx33]

It boils down to 3 primary issues:

1) Is the choice of programming limited by market monopoly? In other words do political conservatives own most of the radio stations?

2) Is the inbalance illegal under the rules of the public charter they exist under?

3) Is there a viable market for left of center radio?

Those are the only issues. If any of these are "no", then I don't see it changing. Personally I don't really care. I don't have time to listen to the radio unless I'm in the car and I certainly wouldn't listen to politics of any kind on the radio, left or right. What politcal news and information I get I get from the web via RSS feeds, MP3 files or because I deliberately go looking for something I feel I need to know, in which case it's researach based not something the mass media puts out there. I'd say 90% of what I decide is worth spending time on is outside the mainstream press, and 99% of it's outside the talk radio genre. Internet radio is another story...I will listen to that while I'm doing other things on the web.

Besides...do we really WANT a liberal version of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin? Talk radio gas bags might be gas bags even if they vote Dem...don't you think? LOL

I mean it's all about ratings and crazy seems to sell.


There are other shows...

[ghwk]

Man am I sorry I wasted time on this thread. Had some potential too.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Yeah. It seems the more the policies of the Right fail and the more their numbers diminish, the louder they get.

Someday it will dawn on them that the ideology of Reagan was the politics of UBERFAIL. Then, they'll really get noisy.

I still think you can't beat, "Keep your stinking government hands off my Medicare!" ;D

:spit:

Seeing as Reagan was the best president of your lifetime, I would suggest that you have little idea as of what a good president looks like.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Besides...do we really WANT a liberal version of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin? Talk radio gas bags might be gas bags even if they vote Dem...don't you think? LOL

I mean it's all about ratings and crazy seems to sell.

You lefties have plenty of them: That former ESPN clown on MSNBC Olbermann (makes Glenn Beck look like Aristotle), Rachel Maddow, Al Franken, that chick Garafalo, Chris Matthews, every opinion writer in Liberal TV (abc, cbs, nbc, and affiliates), the editors at every "major" news outlet including TV, internet, and print, and countless other hacks at papers and local affiliates around the country.

Theyre all following the modern journalists mantra to "change the world" with their liberal ideologies. You absolutely have to be a liberal to move up in that industry. Its a requirement.

What all of you seem to be missing is that modern conservative radio grew up in a niche created by the void left by the mainstream media...the major media outlets had gone so far left that a significant number of people would rather listen to the radio (an obviously outdated medium) to get their news than to be fed their news by a bunch of liberals who want to force their ideology down their throats and dont give a crap what they think about it.

Its like squeezing a baloon...you can compress one end, but the air just moves somewhere else. It doesnt go away.

I can tell you this much, if the liberals legislated away conservative talk radio, it would move to another medium, and the society would continue to grow farther and farther apart. It would not be a wise move at all, but since when have liberals been concerned about doing what is right or what is wise? they are only concerned about their own power and will do whatever it takes to take as much as they can. It will be their downfall in the end. There is just too much free information available out there to make conservativism go away. Those people will fight for their right to exist.

[TexanBob]

Is Err Amerikkka still stealing money from youth groups to fund their network or was that only Sen. Franken's doing?

[Bronx33]

Go to 7:40 and listen to a discussion about this very topic.

http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KOA-AM/Rosen08-27-09-09AM.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=668&STATION_ID=KOA-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Mike_Rosen&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST_TITLE=The_Mike_Rosen_Show

[Bronx33]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/17/iowa-sen-grassley-pens-letter-fcc-chair-questions-media-should-be-aski

Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has publicly released a letter he penned to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski regarding the July 29th announced appointment of new FCC Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd.

In the press release accompanying the missive, the Senator said he was "concerned with the appointment due to Lloyd’s writings on political talk radio and the Fairness Doctrine."

As the Senator's letter goes on to detail, there is very much more to fear from Lloyd than merely his views on the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine. Lloyd's intentions on the enforcement of the FCC regulations known as "media diversity" and "localism" are no picnic either.

In advance of then-nominee Genachowski's June 16 Senate Commerce Committee confirmation hearing, my boss - Media Research Center President Brent Bozell - drafted and publicly released a list of questions that Genachowski should have been asked.

Sadly, with the exception of the most pro forma of queries about the mis-named "Fairness" Doctrine, he was not.

Genachowski therefore remains a blank slate on his "media diversity" and "localism" enforcement intentions. We are thusly left to think the worst about his appointment of Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd. The Chairman has to have read Lloyd's writings; his appointing him must mean Genachowski at least tacitly accepts Lloyd's views on the subjects at hand.

Which is frightening.



We have repeatedly explained that Lloyd is virulently anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation.

Lloyd has in his past written a road map for how liberal activists should use the FCC to threaten the licenses of stations with whom they do not agree politically. He seeks to impose an annual FCC license fee equal to each station's annual gross operating budget, with the money going to public broadcasting stations with whom the private stations then have to compete.

That he now works at the FCC where he can put his ridiculous policy proposals into place is more than a little disconcerting.

There is much more to be mined from the mind and pen of this man. We are currently poring over his many writings; there will be much more to come from us.

But from all we have thus far learned it appears that the First Amendment and free speech are either completely foreign or irrelevant to him.

Senator Grassley's letter:

Dear Chairman Genachowski,

On July 29, 2009, you announced the appointment of Mark Lloyd as Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). I write today to express my concerns with this appointment and ask for you to clarify and reaffirm statements you made to me in a personal meeting prior to your confirmation related to the Fairness Doctrine and efforts to diversify broadcast media.

On April 22, 2009, before your confirmation by the U.S. Senate for your position as Chairman of the FCC, you came to my office and told me that you did not support an effort to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I took you at your word that, if confirmed, the policies that you promoted at the FCC would not include any policy or regulatory shifts that seek to reintroduce the long abandoned Fairness Doctrine. However, I have serious reservations that you may be moving away from these statements you made to me regarding the Fairness Doctrine given the appointment of Mr. Lloyd to a position within the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) at the FCC. Please allow me to elaborate.

My concerns relate to Mr. Lloyd’s participation in scholarly writings on political talk radio, the Fairness Doctrine, and efforts to bring greater diversity to talk radio. Prior to joining the FCC, Mr. Lloyd served as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), in addition to positions as a professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute. In his capacity as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, he coauthored a paper titled, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” This paper argued that radio programming was currently “imbalanced” and that there are “serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.” Mr. Lloyd’s paper suggests three options to remedy the “imbalance” in political talk radio, including (1) restoring caps on commercial radio station ownership, (2) ensure greater accountability in licensing, and (3) require owners who fail to enforce public interest ownership obligations to pay a fee. While these remedies seem innocuous on their face, hidden within the paper are some stark revelations.

First, Mr. Lloyd’s paper suggests that the Fairness Doctrine was “never formally repealed.” Instead, Mr. Lloyd argues that the FCC merely announced “it would no longer enforce certain

regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine.” The paper continues by stating that while the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FCC decision, the Supreme Court has “never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine…thus it technically would not be considered repealed.”

Second, the paper suggests that the FCC revise the licensing process for radio broadcasters. Specifically, it suggests that licenses should not be permitted for longer than three years, that they be subject to challenges in the decision to renew their licenses, and that they submit to strict documentation and regulatory requirements.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the paper suggests that commercial radio owners be subjected to new regulatory requirements enforcing public interest obligations and if they fail to meet these standards, subjecting them to fees and taxes in order to compel compliance. The paper suggests that such a fee or fine structure could raise between $100 million to $250 million in new revenue, but would not “overly burden commercial radio broadcasters.”

Taken together, these statements represent a view that the FCC needs to expand its regulatory arm further into the commercial radio market. However, it would be unfair for me to say that Mr. Lloyd has specifically advocated for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Instead, he has argued that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary if other regulatory reforms to commercial radio are implemented. Specifically, in discussing the CAP paper “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” Mr. Lloyd authored an internet article published on CAP’s website entitled, “Forget the Fairness Doctrine.” In that piece, Mr. Lloyd stated, “we call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity…we call for more localism by putting teeth into the licensing rules. But we do not call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.”

Simply put, I strongly disagree with Mr. Lloyd. I do not believe that more regulation, more taxes or fines, or increased government intervention in the commercial radio market will serve the public interest or further the goals of diversifying the marketplace. I am concerned that despite his statements that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means. Accordingly, I ask that you clarify and reaffirm your commitment to me to oppose any reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. Further, I ask you to affirmatively state that you will not pursue an agenda that includes any new restrictions, fines, fees, or licensing requirements on commercial radio that would effectively create a backdoor Fairness Doctrine. I appreciate your prompt reply regarding this important matter.

Sincerely,
Chuck Grassley
United States Senator

[Rohirrim]

:spit:

Seeing as Reagan was the best president of your lifetime, I would suggest that you have little idea as of what a good president looks like.

Ha! The drama llama comes up with another good one. You're always good for a laugh.

[Bronx33]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/megaphone_envy_and_the_fairnes.html

The way the leftists and liberals go on about conservative talk radio, what they call our "megaphones," one would suspect that they had a bad case of megaphone envy. They make it sound that somehow conservatives and their capitalist lackeys have created a monopoly over the radio spectrum, cutting off and drowning out the left's political points of view that otherwise would surely prevail in the court of public opinion, if only the "People" had the chance to hear them. However, the facts presented below suggest otherwise. There is an active progressive radio network broadcasting today, even if a commercial version, Air America, failed to survive financially.


The premier owner of progressive radio stations in the US is the Pacifica Foundation. Founded in 1949 in Berkeley, California with the explicit intent of spreading a pacifist message through radio broadcasting, today the organization holds Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses for powerful FM transmitters in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Houston, Washington, D.C. and New York City. In addition, they claim almost 150 affiliate stations that re-broadcast their content in other US markets. Pacifica's programming leans heavily to the political, with titles like Women in Triumph and Struggle, La Raza Chronicles, Spirit in Action, Feminist Magazine, or, a syndicated favorite, "Democracy Now!" produced and hosted by Amy Goodman.


A reasonable analysis of the situation in the five metropolitan market areas with Pacifica transmitters shows that government licensure has offered Pacifica Foundation stations full technical equivalency to the local stations that carry the prototypical conservative talk show personality, Rush Limbaugh. Below is a list of the Pacifica FM stations by market and the corresponding AM stations that carry Rush Limbaugh. Each station's call letters links to a calculated coverage map on http://www.radio-locator.com/. Note that the maps for the AM stations are for daytime coverage - this is Limbaugh's typical time slot. FM coverage is pretty much the same day or night.

Metro Market
Relative Market Rank
Pacifica

Limbaugh







San Francisco
4
KPFA

KSFO







Los Angeles
2
KPFK

KFI*







Houston
6
KPFT

KTRH







Washington, D.C.
9
WPFW

WMAL







New York City
1
WBAI

WABC*


* A clear channel on AM


An inspection of the two maps in any specific market shows that the Pacifica licenses pretty much cover their metropolitan areas and hence the core population about as well as the Limbaugh stations. The Limbaugh stations do have a bit further reach into the lower population density hinterlands, especially the two powerful clear channel AM stations, known to the industry as "blowtorches." This is to some degree the result of a technological choice on the part of Pacifica Foundation. It opted for the superior broadcast sound quality of FM. In addition, the FCC designated the lower part of the FM band as "non-commercial educational", giving non-commercial educational organizations (NCEs) like Pacifica preference in FM frequency allocation.


So who has the bigger, more powerful megaphone, as granted by the US Federal Communications Commission, at least in these five major metropolitan markets? I'd call it a pretty much a wash but you can judge for yourself by comparing hyperlinked maps.


Of course, there is the little matter of money. The conservative talk radio stations are all owned by profit-seeking, private commercial enterprises. To listen to Limbaugh one must endure his paid commercial discussions of tank-less water heaters, identity theft services, credit card negotiators, and others. That's how the station owners cover the purchase price of the licenses, the electric bill, the studio and tower rents, transmitter maintenance, and Limbaugh's fees. In addition they pay taxes. They pay property taxes and employment taxes and inventory taxes, ad nauseum. When they manage to make a profit, they pay income taxes too. For example, the major radio player, Clear Channel Communications, in 2006 (before it went private and stopped filing 10K reports) paid over half a billion dollars in income taxes at a rate of almost 30% of net income.


On the other hand, Pacifica Foundation, as a recognized non-profit, made no profit and paid no income taxes. In fact, Pacifica is subsidized by government. For the last available IRS form 990 (roughly equivalent to an individual's Form 1040), in 2006, 11.8% of their "cash received" came from "government contributions (grants)." As of this writing, Pacifica Foundation headquarters has not responded to repeated attempts at communication, so the nature or the sources of these funds have not been revealed. Some or all of this might have been project work under contract to a government entity but under what terms and for what services, we don't know.


But that's just the direct payments. As Professor Arthur Brooks, of Syracuse University, reminds us, the contributions of the listeners are indirectly subsidized by their ability to deduct charitable contributions from their taxable income. While most would agree that having government not tax the income that we share with charitable non-profits is usually a worthy public policy, it remains an indirect subsidy. For most of us this is a trivial personal matter but what about the $300,000 gift by "Annonymous #34" [sic] Pacifica received per their 2006 tax return? Assuming the philanthropist lives in California and is in the highest tax brackets, that's probably over $100,000 the federal government didn't receive and $30,000 the state of California never saw. Plus, given the highly political content broadcast over Pacifica stations, are they really a charitable organization?


Another matter is the value of the licenses that Pacifica Foundation holds as a gift from the federal government. These are valuable pieces of paper, if not fully tangible property in the legal or accounting sense. They are issued and re-issued by the FCC for terms of 6 years and grant exclusive local use of a 400 kilohertz slice of the electromagnetic spectrum to an FM broadcaster. Barring malfeasance, public challenge, political interference, or gross disregard of FCC regulations, re-issuance is routine. There is an active market in licenses although transfer requires prior FCC approval. A public firm like Clear Channel Communications has to show the market value of the licenses on their books and "marks to market" the value ("impairment") every year, much like the accounting for goodwill. They estimated the value of their licenses in 2006 as about $6 billion although they have since divested many stations and impaired the value of many more.


As a non-profit entity, Pacifica has neither to calculate nor report the value of its five licenses. In a court dispute over control of Pacifica in 1999, the value of the Berkeley station alone was reported as $60 million. That was probably too low at the time, and would more realistically be almost $150 million today according to professional radio station broker, Dave Garland, based on his knowledge of industry trends and recent market transactions. Today, all five licenses could fetch upwards of $250,000,000 per Mr. Garland's estimation. Yet, Pacifica need not report these holdings nor pay taxes on the appreciation.


So here is a progressive network of five stations, subsidized with taxpayer cash partially covering operating expenses, broadcasting over extremely valuable radio spectra in major US markets as a gift from the US government. Seems like Pacifica Foundation has little basis for complaint about being stifled. They have the means to get their message out. All citizens have to do is turn their radios on, dial them in, and listen. Do they?


Let's compare just how many citizens take the opportunity for progressive content against how many citizens chose the stations with conservative talk programming. The dominant company in radio ratings is Arbitron, which uses a special device called a "Portable People Monitor" which is carried by randomly selected adults and teens on their persons. It records the special inaudible signals embedded in audio stream by participating stations then uploads them to Arbitron via cell phones incorporated within the base stations supplied for nightly recharging. It is still a relatively new technique but it seems more accurate than the hand-written diary methods used previously.


Survey results are available to sophisticated marketing experts in a number of forms but for our purposes, a relative simple metric called "share" (page 38) tells the story. Of all the time spent listening to radio in a market, what percentage of the total radio listening is to the rated station? The standard parameters for this data are persons 12 and over, between the hours of 6 AM and 12 midnight, over the seven day week. A station with a share of 2% gets twice as much of listening time (in people-hours) as a station with a 1% share. Almost all stations participate. In just the Washington D.C market, 9th size in the nation and the smallest with a Pacifica station, there are 43 competing stations dividing the 100% of the radio listening amongst them.


Here's a summary chart:

Metro Markets
Stations
Share (%)
Ratio

New York City
WABC-AM
4.3
43


WBAI-FM
0.1







Washington, D.C.
WMAL-AM
3.2
5


WPFW-FM
0.7







Houston
KTRH-AM
5.4
27


KPFT-FM
0.2







Los Angeles
KFI-AM
4.4
22


KPFK-FM
0.2







San Francisco
KSFO-AM
3.5
?


KPFA-FM
not rated







source: Arbitron PPM Ratings January, 2009





The conservative talk radio station is listed as the top entry in each market pair. "Ratio" is how many times larger is the conservative talk station's audience than the Pacifica progressive station's audience. Note that KPFA in Berkeley has yet to install the Arbitron encoder needed to be included in the ratings due to technical difficulties according to the station engineer I spoke with. There are 59 stations with Arbitron encoders competing for the audience's listening time in the San Francisco market.


The one Pacifica station that seems to be a competitive outlier is WPFW in Washington D.C. It is listed as a "jazz" format and has more music compared to the other Pacifica stations with 11 of the 18 weekday hours of the survey devoted to music. Of course, Washington is a company town and conservative talk radio is not exactly big-government friendly -- WMAL is relatively low rated amongst the conservative stations.


The facts show that progressive radio has more than a fair chance to reach a radio audience but listeners just aren't tuning in. In New York City, hardly a bastion of knuckle-dragging rednecks, conservative talk radio is preferred 43 to 1. Of course, Pacifica might not be the only progressive broadcaster in these markets but then there are other conservative talk radio broadcasters who don't carry Rush Limbaugh.


I asked the Pacifica Foundation for their opinion on the Fairness Doctrine (or its offspring "localism") but no official position was forthcoming. I did have a thoughtful exchange with one board member, Shawn O'Brien, a radio host on Pacifica's KPFK in Los Angeles, who was careful to present his opinions as his alone and not necessarily those of the Pacifica board. He lamented that since the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, "Pacifica has also become more partisan and far more doctrinaire, which is a real shame, as the original mission of the network was firmly in line with the intent of the Fairness Doctrine, in that, Pacifica wanted to present all viewpoints on the network." He also held the view that "the MSM is so tilted to the right" (!) that Pacifica now has a niche to fill. Yet he'd "re-instate the Fairness Doctrine in a heartbeat" if it was his to do.


With 50 FM frequencies, over 100 AM frequencies theoretically available to a listener, if only someone would only pay the costs of filling them, over 300 satellite channels, and an untold number of internet radio stations, one can ask, why does any one channel with a single set of managers and program developers have to overcome their own worldviews and strive for balance within that station's broadcasts?


Scott Walton is the spokesman for KQED-FM in San Francisco, a relatively civil, well mannered, and polite NPR public radio station broadcasting with 110,000 watts. He asserts: "Our organization strives to create balanced content and to present to our audience as complete a picture as possible." In spite of sincere efforts on the part of KQED-FM to do so, most AT readers (and KPFA listeners) would disagree about "balanced content" after a few hours of listening. It should be obvious that "balance" is in the ear of the auditor with no objective measure agreeable to all. In our courtrooms, no one person presents both the prosecution and the defense. Under the Fairness Doctrine, most broadcasters chose to avoid the balance test and refused to air controversial issues. Hasn't it always proved better for free speech to have many voices presenting their worldview as best they can?


Ultimately, liberals and the left don't envy the size of conservatives' megaphones; they fear the power of conservative arguments. More dangerously, they resent radio listeners' freedom to choose.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Of course, there is the little matter of money. The conservative talk radio stations are all owned by profit-seeking, private commercial enterprises. To listen to Limbaugh one must endure his paid commercial discussions of tank-less water heaters, identity theft services, credit card negotiators, and others. That's how the station owners cover the purchase price of the licenses, the electric bill, the studio and tower rents, transmitter maintenance, and Limbaugh's fees. In addition they pay taxes. They pay property taxes and employment taxes and inventory taxes, ad nauseum. When they manage to make a profit, they pay income taxes too. For example, the major radio player, Clear Channel Communications, in 2006 (before it went private and stopped filing 10K reports) paid over half a billion dollars in income taxes at a rate of almost 30% of net income.


On the other hand, Pacifica Foundation, as a recognized non-profit, made no profit and paid no income taxes. In fact, Pacifica is subsidized by government. For the last available IRS form 990 (roughly equivalent to an individual's Form 1040), in 2006, 11.8% of their "cash received" came from "government contributions (grants)." As of this writing, Pacifica Foundation headquarters has not responded to repeated attempts at communication, so the nature or the sources of these funds have not been revealed. Some or all of this might have been project work under contract to a government entity but under what terms and for what services, we don't know.


But that's just the direct payments. As Professor Arthur Brooks, of Syracuse University, reminds us, the contributions of the listeners are indirectly subsidized by their ability to deduct charitable contributions from their taxable income. While most would agree that having government not tax the income that we share with charitable non-profits is usually a worthy public policy, it remains an indirect subsidy. For most of us this is a trivial personal matter but what about the $300,000 gift by "Annonymous #34" [sic] Pacifica received per their 2006 tax return? Assuming the philanthropist lives in California and is in the highest tax brackets, that's probably over $100,000 the federal government didn't receive and $30,000 the state of California never saw. Plus, given the highly political content broadcast over Pacifica stations, are they really a charitable organization?


Another matter is the value of the licenses that Pacifica Foundation holds as a gift from the federal government. These are valuable pieces of paper, if not fully tangible property in the legal or accounting sense. They are issued and re-issued by the FCC for terms of 6 years and grant exclusive local use of a 400 kilohertz slice of the electromagnetic spectrum to an FM broadcaster. Barring malfeasance, public challenge, political interference, or gross disregard of FCC regulations, re-issuance is routine. There is an active market in licenses although transfer requires prior FCC approval. A public firm like Clear Channel Communications has to show the market value of the licenses on their books and "marks to market" the value ("impairment") every year, much like the accounting for goodwill. They estimated the value of their licenses in 2006 as about $6 billion although they have since divested many stations and impaired the value of many more.


As a non-profit entity, Pacifica has neither to calculate nor report the value of its five licenses. In a court dispute over control of Pacifica in 1999, the value of the Berkeley station alone was reported as $60 million. That was probably too low at the time, and would more realistically be almost $150 million today according to professional radio station broker, Dave Garland, based on his knowledge of industry trends and recent market transactions. Today, all five licenses could fetch upwards of $250,000,000 per Mr. Garland's estimation. Yet, Pacifica need not report these holdings nor pay taxes on the appreciation.


So here is a progressive network of five stations, subsidized with taxpayer cash partially covering operating expenses, broadcasting over extremely valuable radio spectra in major US markets as a gift from the US government. Seems like Pacifica Foundation has little basis for complaint about being stifled. They have the means to get their message out. All citizens have to do is turn their radios on, dial them in, and listen. Do they?


Let's compare just how many citizens take the opportunity for progressive content against how many citizens chose the stations with conservative talk programming. The dominant company in radio ratings is Arbitron, which uses a special device called a "Portable People Monitor" which is carried by randomly selected adults and teens on their persons. It records the special inaudible signals embedded in audio stream by participating stations then uploads them to Arbitron via cell phones incorporated within the base stations supplied for nightly recharging. It is still a relatively new technique but it seems more accurate than the hand-written diary methods used previously.


The facts show that progressive radio has more than a fair chance to reach a radio audience but listeners just aren't tuning in. In New York City, hardly a bastion of knuckle-dragging rednecks, conservative talk radio is preferred 43 to 1. Of course, Pacifica might not be the only progressive broadcaster in these markets but then there are other conservative talk radio broadcasters who don't carry Rush Limbaugh.


Ultimately, liberals and the left don't envy the size of conservatives' megaphones; they fear the power of conservative arguments. More dangerously, they resent radio listeners' freedom to choose.

Its ridiculous that our government is subsidizing and sponsoring left-wing radio. The hypocrisy of suggesting such a free-speech-destroying thing as the "fairness" doctrine while subsidizing far left radio should be a red flag to any person that something is not right with this policy.

The left is becoming more and more bold in their attempts to usurp democracy to institute socialist and fascist policies in this country. They concoct subversive legislation, slap a friendly PC moniker on it, and try to slip it under the people's noses before they realize that they are being bamboozled and swindled out of their rights.

It makes sense that the liberal constituency is made up of young people, emotional extremist groups, and minority groups looking to cling to whatever ramp to power that they can get a hold of, because the constituency as a whole is generally easily swayed by whatever popular trends their party feeds them. As long as it is stylish and fashionable, of course. Its as though they do not put any thought into anything except for plotting how to drive the people that they dont agree with into prison camps to be disposed of in their creation of the super race.

Maybe someone from the local emotionally-motivated, rationale-challenged liberal socialist army can find some other information to refute this guy's information regarding free radio and government-funded socialist radio.

[Bronx33]

Its ridiculous that our government is subsidizing and sponsoring left-wing radio. The hypocrisy of suggesting such a free-speech-destroying thing as the "fairness" doctrine while subsidizing far left radio should be a red flag to any person that something is not right with this policy.

The left is becoming more and more bold in their attempts to usurp democracy to institute socialist and fascist policies in this country. They concoct subversive legislation, slap a friendly PC moniker on it, and try to slip it under the people's noses before they realize that they are being bamboozled and swindled out of their rights.

It makes sense that the liberal constituency is made up of young people, emotional extremist groups, and minority groups looking to cling to whatever ramp to power that they can get a hold of, because the constituency as a whole is generally easily swayed by whatever popular trends their party feeds them. As long as it is stylish and fashionable, of course. Its as though they do not put any thought into anything except for plotting how to drive the people that they dont agree with into prison camps to be disposed of in their creation of the super race.

Maybe someone from the local emotionally-motivated, rationale-challenged liberal socialist army can find some other information to refute this guy's information regarding free radio and government-funded socialist radio.



Mark Lloyd is a bull in a china shop just listen to that rosen podcast with Seton Motley i posted.

[Bronx33]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52435


Heres a link for the lefties, so iam being fair :)

[rastaman]

:spit:

Seeing as Reagan was the best president of your lifetime, I would suggest that you have little idea as of what a good president looks like.

Raygunn was a lousy B-Actor President at best. Truth be told, it was Ray Gunn who set America on the course to runaway debt-deficits and deregulation. Ray Gunn was the best friend-puppet for Corporations and the military industrialized complex.

Here's the track record of Ray Gunn's Supply Side Economic disasters:

In 1982, the first full year for Reagan’s policies, the economy shrank by 2%, the worst performance since the Great Depression. Investment — the magic transmission belt through which all other Supply Side benefits were supposed to flow — actually declined as a percent of GDP over the 1980s. Worse, Reagan’s Supply Side policies created the biggest budget deficits in history. The numbers tell the story.

Jimmy Carter’s last budget produced a deficit of $77 billion. At the time, it seemed huge. But Reagan’s first budget swelled the deficit to $128 billion. By the next year, 1983, it had exploded to $208 billion and was creating severe problems for the economy. By 1992, at the end of the “Reagan Revolution,” (under Reagan’s Vice President and successor, Bush, Sr.) the deficit was approaching $300 billion a year.

Annual deficits, of course, accumulate to the national debt. In 1980, the national debt amounted to less than $1 trillion. By the end of 1992, it had reached $4.35 trillion. In other words, the debt, which had taken over 200 years to reach $1 trillion, quadrupled in the 12 years of Supply Side Economics. A more complete, definitive repudiation of Supply Side’s claims could not be imagined.

So much for the myth of Reagan.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0514-20.htm

[Rohirrim]

Its ridiculous that our government is subsidizing and sponsoring left-wing radio. The hypocrisy of suggesting such a free-speech-destroying thing as the "fairness" doctrine while subsidizing far left radio should be a red flag to any person that something is not right with this policy.

The left is becoming more and more bold in their attempts to usurp democracy to institute socialist and fascist policies in this country. They concoct subversive legislation, slap a friendly PC moniker on it, and try to slip it under the people's noses before they realize that they are being bamboozled and swindled out of their rights.

It makes sense that the liberal constituency is made up of young people, emotional extremist groups, and minority groups looking to cling to whatever ramp to power that they can get a hold of, because the constituency as a whole is generally easily swayed by whatever popular trends their party feeds them. As long as it is stylish and fashionable, of course. Its as though they do not put any thought into anything except for plotting how to drive the people that they dont agree with into prison camps to be disposed of in their creation of the super race.

Maybe someone from the local emotionally-motivated, rationale-challenged liberal socialist army can find some other information to refute this guy's information regarding free radio and government-funded socialist radio.

Gawd, what a drama queen. They can't even get their health care bill passed and you're squealing about them taking over the world.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Am 760 in Denver is doing fairly well I think, for me it's tough to listen to but I know other people who listen to it. It's not Conservative talk radio's fault that liberal stations have a hard time compeating. Maybe they should concentrate on their content and creating a viable radio show rather than blaming someone else. Just a thought.
Riiiiggghhhtttttt........like the rightard radio nuts? Eight years of criminality from GWB and their entire schtick is built on blaming someone else. In fact that's literally ALL they do.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Its ridiculous that our government is subsidizing and sponsoring left-wing radio. The hypocrisy of suggesting such a free-speech-destroying thing as the "fairness" doctrine while subsidizing far left radio should be a red flag to any person that something is not right with this policy.

The left is becoming more and more bold in their attempts to usurp democracy to institute socialist and fascist policies in this country. They concoct subversive legislation, slap a friendly PC moniker on it, and try to slip it under the people's noses before they realize that they are being bamboozled and swindled out of their rights.

It makes sense that the liberal constituency is made up of young people, emotional extremist groups, and minority groups looking to cling to whatever ramp to power that they can get a hold of, because the constituency as a whole is generally easily swayed by whatever popular trends their party feeds them. As long as it is stylish and fashionable, of course. Its as though they do not put any thought into anything except for plotting how to drive the people that they dont agree with into prison camps to be disposed of in their creation of the super race.

Maybe someone from the local emotionally-motivated, rationale-challenged liberal socialist army can find some other information to refute this guy's information regarding free radio and government-funded socialist radio.
Sometimes I wonder if you might have had some kind of closed head injury at some point.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Sometimes I wonder if you might have had some kind of closed head injury at some point.

Get hip to sarcasm, chico.

[epicSocialism4tw]

They can't even get their health care bill passed and you're squealing about them taking over the world.

:rofl:

Why cant they get Obamacare passed? Because some of the constituencies WOKE UP! The people dont want it. What a concept! If the people dont want it, then the governing class fears their security and adapts to meet the will of the people! Novel concept for sure. The Greeks were onto something.


I'm not worried about your party taking over the world. When the rubber hits the road, you ladies go the way of France and duck out because your party fears and is immobilized by death, sacrifice, and loss. You'll get out of the way and hand over your power. Nothing is worth dying for for you people, because you have no concept of what is valuable. The only thing that you value is yourselves.

Not to mention that the discombobulated mess of irrationale and phantasmic binds that make up the democratic party is held together by the thinnest of ties. All it takes is a little discord and that thing fractures into a million vitriolic pieces that eat each other alive.

Your party only shares the religion of liberalism and its secular humanist dogma. Neither of which should be taken seriously by any philosopher.

[Dukes]

Riiiiggghhhtttttt........like the rightard radio nuts? Eight years of criminality from GWB and their entire schtick is built on blaming someone else. In fact that's literally ALL they do.

What does Bush have to do with Liberals blaming republicans because their shows can't compete over the airwaves? ???

[Rohirrim]

:rofl:

Why cant they get Obamacare passed? Because some of the constituencies WOKE UP! The people dont want it. What a concept! If the people dont want it, then the governing class fears their security and adapts to meet the will of the people! Novel concept for sure. The Greeks were onto something.


I'm not worried about your party taking over the world. When the rubber hits the road, you ladies go the way of France and duck out because your party fears and is immobilized by death, sacrifice, and loss. You'll get out of the way and hand over your power. Nothing is worth dying for for you people, because you have no concept of what is valuable. The only thing that you value is yourselves.

Not to mention that the discombobulated mess of irrationale and phantasmic binds that make up the democratic party is held together by the thinnest of ties. All it takes is a little discord and that thing fractures into a million vitriolic pieces that eat each other alive.

Your party only shares the religion of liberalism and its secular humanist dogma. Neither of which should be taken seriously by any philosopher.


Every time you post it sounds like your hair is on fire. Health care is not passing because the people who make billions on our current system are spending millions a day to scare chicken littles like you into running around like your hair is on fire. BTW, this is a very old tradition. When they first talked about health care reform in America in the 20s the opposition said it "Was a plan hatched by the Kaiser!" When Truman brought the subject up they said "Soon, the Reds will be driving tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue." When LBJ tried they had Reagan doing commercials about "Socialism taking over America." It's a shame our populace is so poorly educated that they buy into this crap.

Meanwhile, there actually is a "Death Panel" operating, but it's some little actuary in a back office somewhere working for the insurance companies. That's where they send the hip replacement surgery request for grandma and that little guy sits there stamping a big red "Denied" on all the papers.

Speaking of failed philosophies. What do you think of Raygun's trickle down? It's been great for the country, eh? :rofl:

[epicSocialism4tw]

Every time you post it sounds like your hair is on fire. Health care is not passing because the people who make billions on our current system are spending millions a day to scare chicken littles like you into running around like your hair is on fire. BTW, this is a very old tradition. When they first talked about health care reform in America in the 20s the opposition said it "Was a plan hatched by the Kaiser!" When Truman brought the subject up they said "Soon, the Reds will be driving tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue." When LBJ tried they had Reagan doing commercials about "Socialism taking over America." It's a shame our populace is so poorly educated that they buy into this crap.

Meanwhile, there actually is a "Death Panel" operating, but it's some little actuary in a back office somewhere working for the insurance companies. That's where they send the hip replacement surgery request for grandma and that little guy sits there stamping a big red "Denied" on all the papers.

Speaking of failed philosophies. What do you think of Raygun's trickle down? It's been great for the country, eh?

It is profoundly stupid to suggest that healthcare in the United States has not progressed since the 1920's.

[Fedaykin]

It would not be a wise move at all, but since when have liberals been concerned about doing what is right or what is wise? they are only concerned about their own power and will do whatever it takes to take as much as they can.

This is the attitude that is the root cause of the current political idiocy in the world. Claiming that all the people who disagree with you are "evil" is not only childish but incredibly damaging to constructive debate that can be had between people with differing political viewpoints. There are certainly "evil" people of all political persuasions, but the vast majority of people of any political persuasion honestly believe that their views are correct and they are doing "good".

You would be wise to keep that in mind instead of making the sweeping generalization fallacy that you and others do all the time here, because it makes your contribution to any conversation worse than useless.

[Rohirrim]

It is profoundly stupid to suggest that healthcare in the United States has not progressed since the 1920's.

It is profoundly stupid to take something out of context, twist it to mean something completely unintended, and then pretend like your point has any possible merit.

[epicSocialism4tw]

It is profoundly stupid to take something out of context, twist it to mean something completely unintended, and then pretend like your point has any possible merit.

Your intention was clearly to make a point that the US have been trying to "fix" healthcare since the 1920's, and your implied intent was to say that it has spent those nearly 90 years ignoring the same problems.

You said it, not me. And yes, it is profoundly ignorant and infinitely stupid.

[epicSocialism4tw]

This is the attitude that is the root cause of the current political idiocy in the world. Claiming that all the people who disagree with you are "evil" is not only childish but incredibly damaging to constructive debate that can be had between people with differing political viewpoints. There are certainly "evil" people of all political persuasions, but the vast majority of people of any political persuasion honestly believe that their views are correct and they are doing "good".

You would be wise to keep that in mind instead of making the sweeping generalization fallacy that you and others do all the time here, because it makes your contribution to any conversation worse than useless.

ROFL!

Hypocrisy much, son?

[Fedaykin]

ROFL!

Hypocrisy much, son?

Care to replace your hubris with evidence of said hypocrisy?

[Rohirrim]

Your intention was clearly to make a point that the US have been trying to "fix" healthcare since the 1920's, and your implied intent was to say that it has spent those nearly 90 years ignoring the same problems.

You said it, not me. And yes, it is profoundly ignorant and infinitely stupid.

No, dumb ****. My point was that every time the subject has come up, the rightards and their special interest masters have used scare tactics to frighten and misinform the public rather than allow an honest discussion. In other words, the same thing you do consistently on this board. The drama!

Here's Ronnie Raygun trying to terrorize everybody about Medicare:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fRdLpem-AAs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fRdLpem-AAs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Yeah. It's worked out just like Ronnie warned us. Through Medicare, socialists have taken over America and our freedoms are gone. ROFL!