{"id":342,"date":"2007-01-17T11:19:12","date_gmt":"2007-01-17T17:19:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php\/2007\/01\/17\/so-pick-your-side\/"},"modified":"2012-01-06T14:09:10","modified_gmt":"2012-01-06T20:09:10","slug":"so-pick-your-side","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=342","title":{"rendered":"So Pick Your Side"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\u00a0The other day, when <a href=\"http:\/\/shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php\/2007\/01\/16\/free-speechs-abu-ghraib\/\">talking about the Dems&#8217;<\/a> plan to try to reinstate the &#8220;Fairness Doctrine&#8221;, I noted that there really are only two sides to this debate; you support free speech, or you believe that federal bureaucrats should control it; the exact words were &#8220;authoritarian thug&#8221;.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>We have a vote for\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.taylormarsh.com\/archives_view.php?id=25049\">thug<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>But the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.museum.tv\/archives\/etv\/F\/htmlF\/fairnessdoct\/fairnessdoct.htm\"><strong>Fairness Doctrine<\/strong><\/a> is back or at least being talked about again, with <a href=\"http:\/\/www.fmqb.com\/Article.asp?id=333927\">Congress set to challenge the FCC<\/a>. The thought is already <a href=\"http:\/\/www.captainsquartersblog.com\/mt\/archives\/008935.php\">driving conservatives nuts<\/a>, with more <a href=\"http:\/\/obsidianwings.blogs.com\/obsidian_wings\/2007\/01\/the_beauty_of_f.html\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.rightwingnews.com\/archives\/week_2007_01_14.PHP#007165\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.redstate.com\/blogs\/charles_bird\/2007\/jan\/16\/democrat_behaving_undemocratically\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/drmelissaclouthier.blogspot.com\/2007\/01\/fairness-doctrine-was-stupid-first-time.html\">here<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.bizzyblog.com\/2007\/01\/16\/kucinich-gone-wild-in-the-name-of-fairness\/\">here<\/a>, with <a href=\"http:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?\/weblog\/entry\/22141\/\">Jeff Goldstein<\/a> his usual obtuse self. QandO offers <a href=\"http:\/\/www.qando.net\/details.aspx?entry=5256\">more<\/a>. One blogger calls it <a href=\"http:\/\/shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php\/2007\/01\/16\/free-speechs-abu-ghraib\/\">Free Speech\u2019s Abu Ghraib<\/a>. <em>[waves]<\/em> They&#8217;re all nuts [<font color=\"#0000ff\">Doh!\u00a0 I&#8217;m &#8220;nuts&#8221;!\u00a0 I&#8217;m disintegrating in the face of the logical onslaught!<\/font>]. They&#8217;re also very happy with controlling the radio waves.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Let&#8217;s stop right there for a minute.<\/p>\n<p>The woman writing this bit &#8211; Taylor Marsh &#8211; bills herself as a &#8220;radio host&#8221;.\u00a0 Her &#8220;radio show&#8221; is, of course, an internet-only stream.\u00a0 Not that there&#8217;s anything wrong with that, but it explains how so much of what she says really has nothing to do with the reality of the radio industry.<\/p>\n<p>Conservatives &#8220;control the airwaves&#8221; because we provide a better product that more people want to listen to.\u00a0 Example:\u00a0 My NARN pals and I (who broadcast on a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.am1280thepatriot.com\">real station<\/a> as well as a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.townhall.com\/talkradio\/Show.aspx?RadioShowId=7\">real internet stream<\/a>) &#8220;control the market&#8221; among political talk on Saturday afternoons not because of &#8220;corporate support&#8221; (Salem vs. Clear Channel?\u00a0 Puh-leeze).\u00a0 No, we bitch-slap both KTLK-FM <em>and <\/em>the local Air America affiliate like a prison laundry-room beat-down because <em>people want to listen to us, <\/em>for whatever reason.<\/p>\n<p><em>Ipso <\/em>Limbaugh, Hannity, Hewitt and the rest of us.\u00a0 Nobody holds a gun to an audience&#8217;s head and makes them tune in.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Looking at Ms. Marsh&#8217;s take on history is interesting, inasmuch as it shows the left hasn&#8217;t changed their talking points in over a decade:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The short version of the Fairness Doctrine is that in 1987 Reagan had it scuttled. Shortly after that Rush Limbaugh began his journey and right-wing radio was created and gradually took over the airwaves, with the help of their corporate friends<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>I&#8217;ve often wondered what Democrats <em>think <\/em>they mean when they say this?\u00a0 Was it that&#8230;:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u00a0Limbaugh succeeded only because of the machinations of a cabal of oligarchs that <em>forced <\/em>America to make him their #1 talkradio choice?<\/li>\n<li>Or was it that they don&#8217;t think there were a <em>slew <\/em>of &#8220;corporate friends&#8221; backing the likes of Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo and, of course, Air America?\u00a0 And, with that in mind&#8230;<\/li>\n<li>&#8230;how <em>do <\/em>they think someone launches a national syndication effort?\u00a0 By nailing posters up on telephone polls asking people to listen?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>And, speaking of &#8220;corporate support&#8221;; the week after the NARN went on the air, Fast Eddie Schultz appeared on the <em>Today <\/em>show, in a gushy, fawning interview with Katie Couric.\u00a0 &#8220;Is this man the answer to Rush Limbaugh?&#8221;, Couric asked in the teaser into the break before the interview.\u00a0 At that moment, Schultz had <em>six stations <\/em>in his network; other than Fargo and Minneapolis, none were in large markets.\u00a0 KSTP&#8217;s Joe Soucheray had a bigger cumulative audience.\u00a0 But the big\u00a0media <em>desperately <\/em>want someone on their side to come along and knock off Limbaugh, which is why stiffs like Schultz and Air\u00a0America get such breathless, sycophantic approval from\u00a0(and treated like actual players in) the mainstream press.<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0\u00a0<em>More<\/em> history gone tragically awry follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u00a0I&#8217;m exaggerating, but Democrats were so dense about radio for so long it&#8217;s amazing there are still any <a href=\"http:\/\/www.taylormarsh.com\/taylor_marsh_live.php\">progressive hosts<\/a> out here working every day to get back on radio.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>They were indeed dense &#8211; and, looking at\u00a0the endless farce of Air America, seem to remain so &#8211; but the denseness was that of the fat &#8216;n happy incumbent, not the plucky challenger.\u00a0 Remember when the &#8220;Fairness Doctrine&#8221; was repealed?\u00a0 I do &#8211; I was working in talk radio at the time.\u00a0 Who\u00a0were the big players?\u00a0 ABC Talkradio was the big network in 1987; their big players were Michael\u00a0Jackson (who, with the repeal of the Doctrine, came out as an unabashed lefty), Sally Jessy Raphael (not political, but\u00a0her sympathies were obvious), Owen Span (left of center) and some whom I&#8217;ve long forgotten, but not a conservative among &#8217;em.\u00a0 Mutual&#8217;s big &#8211; and only &#8211; property was Larry King, who never did a &#8220;political&#8221; show, but whose sympathies are and were solidly left of center.\u00a0 \u00a0&#8220;Conservative&#8221; network talk was pretty much unheard of; Morton Downey, Bob Grant and Joe Pyne were the godfathers of the genre, and they were purely local.<\/p>\n<p>So in terms of content, the left <em>had control <\/em>of talk radio the day the Fairness Doctrine was put to sleep.\u00a0 How <em>could <\/em>that status quo have flipped 180 degrees within two years?\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0Because &#8220;corporate friends&#8221; willed it?\u00a0 Or because Rush Limbaugh <em>et al <\/em>delivered a product that the market wanted and scooped up in droves?<\/p>\n<p>And what about those droves?\u00a0 How did they get there?<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u00a0It&#8217;s about getting control of all the little stations in all the little towns so that you can influence all those people.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Why does the left fail at radio?\u00a0 Because they don&#8217;t understand it.\u00a0 Yes, Limbaugh\u00a0has been for many years a Clear Channel\u00a0property &#8211; but his popularity waxed long before that deal was ever inked.\u00a0 And in those days, stations\u00a0&#8211; including a throng of small to mid-market stations, most of them not even &#8220;talk radio&#8221; stations in format terms &#8211; took Limbaugh&#8217;s show in droves.\u00a0 My own radio alma mater, KQDJ in Jamestown ND, ran Limbaugh for years; the rest of the day, they were middle-of-the-road music and farm prices.\u00a0 Many small market stations followed suit.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 <em>Because people tuned in.\u00a0 <\/em>Which is the goal in the business.<\/p>\n<p>The inevitable rejoinder from the left is &#8220;But ClearChannel controls both Limbaugh and hundreds of stations!&#8221;.\u00a0 Yes, for now &#8211; they&#8217;re selling off most of their small-market stations &#8211; and it&#8217;s irrelevant.\u00a0 ClearChannel is a business.\u00a0 Not only that, but much of the &#8220;success&#8221; Air America has had in the past few years has been from <em>Clear Channel <\/em>opti<a href=\"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/archives\/005396.html\">oning Air America programming at some of its smaller urban stations<\/a>\u00a0as a tactical move.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>In other words, Clear Channel &#8211; the big, bad, &#8220;conservative&#8221; radio powerhouse &#8211; did more than any other broadcast corporation to keep Air America alive <em>in the market.<\/em>\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because they figured there might be a (fringe) market!\u00a0 (They eventually realized they figured wrong; most Clear Channel talk stations are backing slowly out of their Air America commitments).<\/p>\n<p>Let&#8217;s return to Ms. Marsh.\u00a0 Contempt for the audience?\u00a0 She&#8217;s got it!<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u00a0The host gets to know his\/her audience, they trust him\/her, so when this host tells them to vote for Right Wing Randy\/Roxanne, they likely will.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Yeah, it worked like a charm this past November, didn&#8217;t it?\u00a0<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\u00a0After all, they&#8217;ve built up a trust. Republicans will do <a href=\"http:\/\/www.taylormarsh.com\/archives_view.php?id=24205\">anything<\/a> to get ratings, which includes leaving the facts out and plying their audience with daily doses of emotion instead.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Leaving aside the &#8220;facts&#8221; bit &#8211; and no movement that includes Keith Olberman and Chris Matthews should complain much about selectiveness &#8211; talk radio is <em>entertainment.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em>Emotion trumps fact (although among many of conservative talk&#8217;s stocks in trade is filling facts about stories the left-wing media omits.\u00a0 Memogate, anyone?)\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>But I&#8217;ll give this to Ms. Taylor; her next graf sums up the left&#8217;s ignorance of radio as perfectly as anything I&#8217;ve seen:\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Creating Democratic business consortiums that help hosts get on the air, with the best of us staying on and eventually catapulting to syndication. The Fairness Doctrine <em>could<\/em> really make a difference. Why do you think conservatives are screaming like crazy?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The left treats radio like a top-down command economy;\u00a0all it takes is a couple (more)\u00a0lefty plutocrats, and all the walls will fall!\u00a0 And\u00a0like all top-down command economies, it needs government coercion to work.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>(And as far as that &#8220;the best of &#8216;us'&#8221; bit &#8211; I&#8217;ll have to listen to Ms. Marsh&#8217;s show and see if she rates this impromptu promotion).<\/p>\n<p>Ms. Marsh; there is <em>nothing <\/em>preventing Democrat talk radio from doing exactly what you describe.\u00a0 Nothing.\u00a0 Indeed, it&#8217;s been done; NPR (and MPR) are nothing if not the product of left-leaning power brokers &#8211; they differ in working through\u00a0government\u00a0rather than the market.\u00a0 And in fact, Air America&#8217;s three year nightmare was exactly what you described (except for the whole &#8220;best of &#8216;us&#8217; vaulting to syndication&#8221;; Air America tried to skip the whole &#8220;learn how to do good radio&#8221; step of the process.\u00a0 As did Hightower and Cuomo.\u00a0 The results were, at worst, comical; standup comics make lousy talk hosts).\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>No, what you (plural) want is for government to <em>force <\/em>the market to accept you.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>We&#8217;re &#8220;screaming&#8221; (the term I use is &#8220;pointing out the inherent oppressiveness and paternalism of your idea&#8221;) because you want the government to do for you what the your genre&#8217;s fundamental lack of talent, mass appeal and market savvy can&#8217;t do for you.<\/p>\n<p>Because head-to-head, all things being equal in a free, open market, conservative talk beats liberal talk every time.\u00a0 And without Big Brother holding a gun to our head and telling us to fight with an arm behind our backs, we always will.<\/p>\n<p>So here&#8217;s the question:\u00a0 Do you believe that people are too stupid to be trusted as consumers of free speech (as Ms. Marsh seems to)?\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Because, as Ms. Marsh put it in about as many words, that&#8217;s really the only reason to reinstate the &#8220;Fairness Doctrine&#8221;.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u00a0The other day, when talking about the Dems&#8217; plan to try to reinstate the &#8220;Fairness Doctrine&#8221;, I noted that there really are only two sides to this debate; you support free speech, or you believe that federal bureaucrats should control it; the exact words were &#8220;authoritarian thug&#8221;.\u00a0 We have a vote for\u00a0thug: But the Fairness [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,4],"tags":[65],"class_list":["post-342","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-culture-war","category-media","tag-fairness-doctrine"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=342"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25411,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342\/revisions\/25411"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=342"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=342"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=342"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}