If you're looking for a break from those conservative voices that dominate talk radio, take time out today to listen to local station OBAMA 1260 AM. You'll hear the progressive voices of Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, Lionel -- or, during morning drive, my own "Bill Press Show" -- providing welcome relief from the constant Obama-bashing by Rush Limbaugh and others. Unfortunately, today's the last day you'll be able to do so.
As reported by The Post [Style, Feb. 2], Dan Snyder's Red Zebra Broadcasting Co., owner of OBAMA 1260, has announced plans to jettison all progressive talk and replace it with pre-recorded financial advice programming.
The commercial use of public airwaves is supposed to reflect the diversity of the local community, but that's not how it works in Washington. On the AM dial, WMAL (630) features wall-to-wall conservative talk. So do stations WTNT (570) and WHFS (1580). For the past two years, OBAMA 1260 -- even with a weak signal that cannot be heard in downtown Washington -- was the exception. No longer. Starting tomorrow, our nation's capital, where Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, and where Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to one, will have no progressive voices on the air.
Or maybe one.
To mollify critics, Red Zebra has said it will add Ed Schultz to its conservative lineup on 570 AM.
Let me pause here for just a moment. 570 AM has decided that there's at least a couple of hours every day when they don't need listeners, because their ratings during the Ed Schultz Show will surely crater and they'll be lucky to find advertisers. We'll see how long that lasts.
Returning to Press further into his diatribe:
In fact, the only reason there's not more competition on American airwaves is that the handful of companies that own most radio stations do everything they can to block it. In many markets -- witness Philadelphia, Boston, Providence and Houston -- they join in providing no outlet for progressive talk. In others, as in Washington, they limit it to a weak signal, spend zero dollars on promotion and soon pull the plug.Free markets are the libs worst nightmare. You'd think that if there was any town in the world willing to listen to hours of whining and complaining, D.C. would be it. However, platitudes about "fairness" don't pay the bills. Listeners and advertisers do, and liberal talk radio has been an absolute disaster in both areas. Forcing stations to carry the unlistenable will not cause more people to hear a range of opinions because most people will tune out when the libs are on.
Companies are given a license to operate public airwaves -- free! -- in order to make a profit, yes, but also, according to the terms of their FCC license, "to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance." Stations are not operating in the public interest when they offer only conservative talk.
For years, the Fairness Doctrine prevented such abuse by requiring licensed stations to carry a mix of opinion. However, under pressure from conservatives, President Ronald Reagan's Federal Communications Commission canceled the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, insisting that in a free market, stations would automatically offer a balance in programming.
That experiment has failed. There is no free market in talk radio today, only an exclusive, tightly held, conservative media conspiracy. The few holders of broadcast licenses have made it clear they will not, on their own, serve the general public. Maybe it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine -- and bring competition back to talk radio in Washington and elsewhere.
They're not entertaining and they are selling a product no one wants to buy.
We've already heard from one senator lately that hearings on talk radio are likely to take place, and I fully expect some sort of action designed not to increase the range of options on radio, but to muzzle conservatives. It will ultimately, however, be a failure. The market will decide what it wants to hear, not Congress.
And I don't think the courts will look kindly on the restrictions to the First Amendment that a new "Fairness" Doctrine would bring.
No comments:
Post a Comment