New Report Claims that Right-Wing Talk Radio Dominance Results From Concentration of Media Ownership

AlterNet has an article out concerning a report issued by the Center for American Progress and the Free Press about why talk radio is dominated by right-wingers. This is a quote from that article:

The report contrasts the amount of right-wing talk -- nine out of every ten hours broadcast on talk-radio is exclusively conservative -- with a talk-radio audience that, according to Pew Research, identifies itself as follows: forty-three percent of regular talk radio listeners are conservative, while "23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate." In other words, fewer than half of those listening to some of the most feverish voices on the right are themselves self-identified conservatives.

So why is this happening? According to the AlterNet article it is because of concentration of ownership of media outlets. The article notes that the report found that when media outlets are owned by women and minorities, such outlets are much less likely to just have right-wing talk radio. As the article noted:

An analysis of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations found that stations "owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows." In contrast, "stations controlled by group owners--those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market--were statistically more likely to air conservative talk." Markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were "less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations."

What the article points out is that large media companies who own a lot of media outlets have a financial interest in promoting a political philosophy that worships the so-called "free market". It has a disincentive in promoting a political philosophy that looks at the airwaves as a public trust. This translates into supporting conservative talk radio even in markets where progressive talk radio has been a market success.

The article's authors also point out that, contrary to what right-wingers like Michelle Malkin are saying, the report does not call for a re-enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. What it calls for is, from the viewpoint of media companies like Clear Channel and Fox, much more radical and that is limiting ownership of radio and television outlets. Such ownership was limited back in the 1950s and 1960s, but over the last three decades the FCC and the Congress have allowed companies like Clear Channel to buy up literally thousands of media outlets. If you are interested in the media, check out this Alternet Article.

Bias at Politico?

If you have ever read the online newspaper Politico, you might find this article by Glen Greenwald in Salon Magazine to be interesting. Greenwald points out that the CEO of Politico is also also the Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Not only that, but he worked for Reagan as Assistant to the President. He donated money to George W. Bush. He also works for the company that is financing Politico. Interestingly none of the major mainstream media outlets that reported on the recent Republican Presidential debate that was held last week at the Reagan Library reported on the ties of the Library's Chair to either Politico or to Ronald Reagan.

Now, why wouldn't they report on these facts? Well, maybe because the elephant in the room that readers aren't supposed to comment on is the issue of the political bias of owners of media companies. We are supposed to believe that reporters never worry about what their bosses think and that they will print the truth regardless of the biases of their bosses.

Frankly we don't buy it because reporters, editors, and other people involved in the news business are human. They want to keep their jobs. They know the biases of their supervisors and the owners of the media companies where they work. They know the culture of the organizations where they work. They know how far they can go with their opinions and their writing. This is especially true with organizations where reporters and other staff personnel are not protected by a collective bargaining agreement.

This is not to say that all organizations police the stories of their reporters, but it is to say that such biases are a legitimate subject of discussion. Only that discussion can't take place if news media organizations act as if it doesn't ever happen or demonize those who argue that the media emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

Kucinch to Chair Domestic Policy Subcommittee, Attempt to Reinstate Fairness Doctrine

The Center for Public Integrity reports on a speech given by Dennis Kucinich where he announces that as chair of Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives, he is going to open the issue of re-establishing the "Fairness Doctrine". Until its demise in the 1980s, the Doctrine assured that opposing viewpoints were heard on electronic media such as radio and television. Since its demise, we have seen the rise of virulent talk radio represented by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Laura Ingram, etc. The reason why these shows predominate on the public's airwaves is because the owners don't have to give opposing viewpoints an opportunity to respond.

The article also reports that Kucinich wants to conduct hearings on the concentration of media into fewer and fewer corporations and on the role of the Federal Communications Commission in regulating the media. Kucinich also said that he supported a Federal shield law for both bloggers and journalists.

Kucinich gave his remarks at the National Conference for Media Reform. He made his remarks in an unannounced speech to about 2,000 delegates. You can read the Center for Public Integrity's report on Kucinich's speech by clicking on the link in this entry's title.