Should conservative talk radio be funded by the government?

[rudder]

Hell no.

Political type programming should be self-sufficient. If people don't like istening to Air America and they cannot sell advertising.. well too bad.

But in rolls Obama's latest Czar. The Czar of Diversity, His grand plan is to make private radio stations pay for public broadcast stations operating costs so their budgets are equal.

Advertising revenues are way down. If this plan comes to fruition it would likely spell the death nell of many conservative type radio stations by making operating costs so high they will go bankrupt. Otherwise they will have to make air opposing viewpoints as to not get fined.

Diversity Czar

For those that felt Bush trampled the constitution..... here is a :beer:

 

[Liberator21]

But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

EDIT: I get what your saying, didn't want to appear like a troll. I'll be honest, I listen to conservative talk radio almost on a daily basis, but I don't quite understand what you are saying.

At least the radio stations I listen to are user-funded, meaning no commercials. Why would these stations operating expenses increase? Or was this not what you were referring to

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

I would like to see them cut off from gov't funds. They shouldn't have to rely upon them anyway, as the majority of their funding is private.

 

[masteryoda34]

I disagree completely with government funding of talk radio. There's no way to do it without bias under either Republican or Democratic governments, and there's no reason for the government to be involved.

People will listen to what they like. If they don't like it, they'll turn it off. No one is being forced to hear it.

 

[Patranus]

I always find it funny how the liberals complain about "conservative talk radio" when almost every single liberal enterprise into talk radio has failed. There is simply no market as American is a "center right" nation.

The anger of it is a simple illustration of the liberals contempt of free markets.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Patranus
I always find it funny how the liberals complain about "conservative talk radio" when almost every single liberal enterprise into talk radio has failed. There is simply no market as American is a "center right" nation.

The anger of it is a simple illustration of the liberals contempt of free markets.

Yep. If the left had such a great platform, people would listen. Fortunately, they dont, and any attempt at a national audience results in bankruptcy. As masteryoda34 so elequently put it, if people dont like it they'll turn it off. And they do 😉

To answer the OP, I dont think the government sdhould fund talk radio.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

I would like to see them cut off from gov't funds. They shouldn't have to rely upon them anyway, as the majority of their funding is private.

Hell to the no.
If they're cut off the only station I'd be able to listen to is C-Span radio.

I listen to C-Span's Washington Journal every morning when going to work and NPR when returning home.

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
I disagree completely with government funding of talk radio. There's no way to do it without bias under either Republican or Democratic governments, and there's no reason for the government to be involved.

People will listen to what they like. If they don't like it, they'll turn it off. No one is being forced to hear it.

How much bias have you seen on NPR compared to Rush Limbaugh and Air America?
How much bias have you seen on "The News Hour" with Jim Lehrer compared with Fox and CNN/MSNBC?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

I would like to see them cut off from gov't funds. They shouldn't have to rely upon them anyway, as the majority of their funding is private.

Hell to the no.
If they're cut off the only station I'd be able to listen to is C-Span radio.

I listen to C-Span's Washington Journal every morning when going to work and NPR when returning home.

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
I disagree completely with government funding of talk radio. There's no way to do it without bias under either Republican or Democratic governments, and there's no reason for the government to be involved.

People will listen to what they like. If they don't like it, they'll turn it off. No one is being forced to hear it.

How much bias have you seen on NPR compared to Rush Limbaugh and Air America?
How much bias have you seen on "The News Hour" with Jim Lehrer compared with Fox and CNN/MSNBC?

I listen to quite a bit of talk radio myself (10-20 hours/week) and just as every station does, they only tell part of the story. I have heard stories on NPR and the same stories again on ABC or Fox, and its like a different newscast. Given the complexities of many of the stories they cover, it would take 3 hours to cover every angle...but there IS an angle.

Dont get me wrong,m I like NPR. But to think they arent biased, and that their producers dont form news stories to get a particual message across is naive.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

EDIT: I get what your saying, didn't want to appear like a troll. I'll be honest, I listen to conservative talk radio almost on a daily basis, but I don't quite understand what you are saying.

At least the radio stations I listen to are user-funded, meaning no commercials. Why would these stations operating expenses increase? Or was this not what you were referring to

If you think NPR is 'liberal' you are out of your mind. Have you ever listened to NPR? Study after study has shown NPR to be very centrist with a slight establishment bent.

As for why liberal talk radio is not as popular as conservative talk radio, the idea that somehow conservatism relates better to Americans, thus reaching higher ratings, is an absurdity. 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are all relative terms, and 'conservative' talk radio is on the extreme right wing of American society. It doesn't get more listeners because somehow what they are preaching is more representative of what Americans really think, (in nearly all cases their opinions are minority ones) it's because people who agree with them like the titular figures and they like the format. Come on people, use your heads.

As for these (yet again) trumped up fears about the fairness doctrine, it's no more true now than the last 20 threads we've had on here with conservatives shrieking and flailing at imagined enemies.

 

[Tequila]

Quote from the http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52435 article:

Along with this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focused on ?diverse views? and government activities.

Wow, now that is scary.

Another quote from the cnsnews article:

Lloyd wrote Prologue to a Farce while a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. In that capacity, he co-authored the 2007 report The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio, which concluded that 91% of talk radio programming is conservative and 9% is ?progressive.?

The report argued that large corporate broadcasting networks had driven liberals off the radio, and that diversity of ownership would increase diversity of broadcasting voices.

I really doubt the 91% conservative talk show numbers. I listen to both left and right when driving to/from work. These shows come to mind:

right:
Rush Limbaugh (hate)
Sean Hannity (really hate)
Michael Savage (hate his childish rants but makes good points on occasion)
Glenn Beck (entertaining but contradicts himself a lot and a bit loony)
Roger Hedgecock (don't listen to very often)
Laura Ingram (soso)
Armstrong & Getty (my favorites, funny as hell and reasonable guys with libertarian leanings)

left:
Mike Malloy
Rachael Maddow (hate her but she does come up with a good point now and then)
Thom Hartmann (left but very reasonable and common sense guy, I actually like him a lot. Unfortunately Ed Schultz replaced him in local station timeslot)
Ed Schultz (can't stand him and his whiny voice)
Randi Rhodes (hate)
Plenty of far left nutjobs on Democracy Now station.

If you can't formulate your own opinions listening to the left and right then just turn off the damn radio. No need for the government to step in and decide.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

I would like to see them cut off from gov't funds. They shouldn't have to rely upon them anyway, as the majority of their funding is private.

Hell to the no.
If they're cut off the only station I'd be able to listen to is C-Span radio.

I listen to C-Span's Washington Journal every morning when going to work and NPR when returning home.

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
I disagree completely with government funding of talk radio. There's no way to do it without bias under either Republican or Democratic governments, and there's no reason for the government to be involved.

People will listen to what they like. If they don't like it, they'll turn it off. No one is being forced to hear it.

How much bias have you seen on NPR compared to Rush Limbaugh and Air America?
How much bias have you seen on "The News Hour" with Jim Lehrer compared with Fox and CNN/MSNBC?

I listen to quite a bit of talk radio myself (10-20 hours/week) and just as every station does, they only tell part of the story. I have heard stories on NPR and the same stories again on ABC or Fox, and its like a different newscast. Given the complexities of many of the stories they cover, it would take 3 hours to cover every angle...but there IS an angle.

Dont get me wrong, I like NPR. But to think they arent biased, and that their producers dont form news stories to get a particual message across is naive.

If there's a slant or bias to NPR, I've certainly never noticed it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Lothar

If there's a slant or bias to NPR, I've certainly never noticed it.

I for one would love to see some examples of this 'librul' bias that NPR supposedly has.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

EDIT: I get what your saying, didn't want to appear like a troll. I'll be honest, I listen to conservative talk radio almost on a daily basis, but I don't quite understand what you are saying.

At least the radio stations I listen to are user-funded, meaning no commercials. Why would these stations operating expenses increase? Or was this not what you were referring to

If you think NPR is 'liberal' you are out of your mind. Have you ever listened to NPR? Study after study has shown NPR to be very centrist with a slight establishment bent.

As for why liberal talk radio is not as popular as conservative talk radio, the idea that somehow conservatism relates better to Americans, thus reaching higher ratings, is an absurdity. 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are all relative terms, and 'conservative' talk radio is on the extreme right wing of American society. It doesn't get more listeners because somehow what they are preaching is more representative of what Americans really think, (in nearly all cases their opinions are minority ones) it's because people who agree with them like the titular figures and they like the format. Come on people, use your heads.

As for these (yet again) trumped up fears about the fairness doctrine, it's no more true now than the last 20 threads we've had on here with conservatives shrieking and flailing at imagined enemies.

Anything that hints at Intellectualism, willingness to know new things, know about different Cultures, and just a sense of overall curiosity about things seems to often get labelled as "Liberal".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

EDIT: I get what your saying, didn't want to appear like a troll. I'll be honest, I listen to conservative talk radio almost on a daily basis, but I don't quite understand what you are saying.

At least the radio stations I listen to are user-funded, meaning no commercials. Why would these stations operating expenses increase? Or was this not what you were referring to

If you think NPR is 'liberal' you are out of your mind. Have you ever listened to NPR? Study after study has shown NPR to be very centrist with a slight establishment bent.

As for why liberal talk radio is not as popular as conservative talk radio, the idea that somehow conservatism relates better to Americans, thus reaching higher ratings, is an absurdity. 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are all relative terms, and 'conservative' talk radio is on the extreme right wing of American society. It doesn't get more listeners because somehow what they are preaching is more representative of what Americans really think, (in nearly all cases their opinions are minority ones) it's because people who agree with them like the titular figures and they like the format. Come on people, use your heads.

As for these (yet again) trumped up fears about the fairness doctrine, it's no more true now than the last 20 threads we've had on here with conservatives shrieking and flailing at imagined enemies.

Anything that hints at Intellectualism, willingness to know new things, know about different Cultures, and just a sense of overall curiosity about things seems to often get labelled as "Liberal".

Basically it in the nut shell. If it's moronic it's conservative and if it's intelligent, cogent and broad in perspective, it's public radio. I really think it's a function of IQ. You need a certain level of intelligence to listen to public radio because the people who produce it do it intelligently. The vine types like to listen to other monkeys.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

I would like to see them cut off from gov't funds. They shouldn't have to rely upon them anyway, as the majority of their funding is private.

Hell to the no.
If they're cut off the only station I'd be able to listen to is C-Span radio.

I listen to C-Span's Washington Journal every morning when going to work and NPR when returning home.

Maybe you missed the fact that most of their funding comes from private sources. I wouldn't want to see NPR go either, but they shouldn't need gov't funding. We're a zillion dollars in the hole.

http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html

NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and programming fees from over 860 independent radio stations, sponsorship from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.

 

[dammitgibs]

My favorite conservative talk radio hosts are Armstrong and Getty and Rabbi Daniel Lapin (and I'm neither Jewish or religious). I've been listening to a lot of AM 560 and 1530 going back and forth to the bay, and as much as I can I listen to AM 960 (liberal/progressive) talk radio and I've made some interesting (to me) observations:

Liberals think the media is working against the health care reform, conservatives think the media is working for the health care reform.

Both sides do a really good job of attacking the opposition with name calling, attacking their character, etc. without really addressing what they're saying. Both sides are calling the other side Nazis.

Liberals think AARP is in bed with the Republicans, conservatives think AARP is a front group for the Democrats.

Vast majority of the commercials are the same on both stations, I even heard Glenn Beck telling me to buy gold on the liberal talk radio.

Those are my "unbiased" observations, and then there's...

On liberal talk radio I constantly hear them tell me that the opposition to health care thinks the system is perfect, that they want nothing changed, that they are happy with the status quo. On conservative talk radio I hear a lot of talk about the current problems and ways to fix the current system from both hosts and callers. I also hear a lot of conservatives champion the current system.


This one really scared me; I always kinda took it with a grain of salt the stereotype that liberals always play the race card, but it really shocked me how often I hear liberal talk radio hosts and callers talk about how Republicans are racist rich white guys. What's interesting though is I hear a lot more diversity in the callers to conservative radio; majority sound like white people, but I hear a lot more Indian, Latino, Black, and other accents in the callers. Liberal radio I hear majority white and a few black callers, but maybe that's just my own ineptitude to tell the difference. Maybe I'm a racist.

Can anyone recommend to me some good liberal talk radio hosts/stations in the bay area, or even some moderate stations that have both points of view?

 

[fskimospy]

Dammitgibs, what you're describing is called the 'hostile media phenomenon'. Whenever people see some news report that contradicts their own viewpoints, they assume it must be biased against them. That's how we get a wonderful world where both liberals and conservatives think the media is out to get them. (ironically it gives them both a scapegoat and a means by which both groups can ignore their failures. And here we thought the media wasn't good for anything!)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rudder
If this plan comes to fruition it would likely spell the death nell of many conservative type radio stations by making operating costs so high they will go bankrupt.

Otherwise they will have to make air opposing viewpoints as to not get fined.

Thank god and about damn time we get that shit off our airwaves.

The airwaves belong to the people not Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and the rest of the vile Anti-Americans.

 

[dammitgibs]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: rudder
If this plan comes to fruition it would likely spell the death nell of many conservative type radio stations by making operating costs so high they will go bankrupt.

Otherwise they will have to make air opposing viewpoints as to not get fined.

Thank god and about damn time we get that shit off our airwaves.

The airwaves belong to the people not Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and the rest of the vile Anti-Americans.

You mean the people that listen to those talk show hosts who provide the ratings for the show that make advertisers want to advertise on their network that keep them in business? Or what people are you talking about that the airwaves belong to?

 

[irishScott]

I listen to the radio for music and morning talk shows. Enough stations around here that there's almost always something decent playing.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

I would like to see them cut off from gov't funds. They shouldn't have to rely upon them anyway, as the majority of their funding is private.

Hell to the no.
If they're cut off the only station I'd be able to listen to is C-Span radio.

I listen to C-Span's Washington Journal every morning when going to work and NPR when returning home.

Maybe you missed the fact that most of their funding comes from private sources. I wouldn't want to see NPR go either, but they shouldn't need gov't funding. We're a zillion dollars in the hole.

http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html

NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and programming fees from over 860 independent radio stations, sponsorship from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.

I bet one F-22 would fund NPR for decades.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

I would like to see them cut off from gov't funds. They shouldn't have to rely upon them anyway, as the majority of their funding is private.

Hell to the no.
If they're cut off the only station I'd be able to listen to is C-Span radio.

I listen to C-Span's Washington Journal every morning when going to work and NPR when returning home.

Maybe you missed the fact that most of their funding comes from private sources. I wouldn't want to see NPR go either, but they shouldn't need gov't funding. We're a zillion dollars in the hole.

http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html

NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and programming fees from over 860 independent radio stations, sponsorship from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.

I bet one F-22 would fund NPR for decades.

That's irrelevant.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Dammitgibs, what you're describing is called the 'hostile media phenomenon'. Whenever people see some news report that contradicts their own viewpoints, they assume it must be biased against them. That's how we get a wonderful world where both liberals and conservatives think the media is out to get them. (ironically it gives them both a scapegoat and a means by which both groups can ignore their failures. And here we thought the media wasn't good for anything!)

That's true, but there have been countless studies where the stories were objectively analyzed for types of words used, "% positive" vs "% negative" coverage etc, and the results of those studies (at least the ones that I have seen) all pretty much agree that in general the media tends to favor establishment and liberalism. Talk radio and fox of course don't lean left, but the rest does, to one degree or another.

Take for example NPR. When they talk about illegal immigration, they'll always refer to them as "undocumented workers", not "illegal immigrants", and they will usually start with some story of a hard working immigrant who's family will now be ripped apart by the heartless law enforcement groups as he gets deported. In other words, they present the story from a liberal perspective. If you heard the same story on Fox, they'd probably show scenes of Mexican gang-members fighting, and then show how the good guys in law enforcement are trying to do something to help solve the problem. That's the right-wing view. There's a LOT more liberal view presented in the general media.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Liberator21
But predominately liberal talk radio (NPR) is.

I would like to see them cut off from gov't funds. They shouldn't have to rely upon them anyway, as the majority of their funding is private.

Hell to the no.
If they're cut off the only station I'd be able to listen to is C-Span radio.

I listen to C-Span's Washington Journal every morning when going to work and NPR when returning home.

Maybe you missed the fact that most of their funding comes from private sources. I wouldn't want to see NPR go either, but they shouldn't need gov't funding. We're a zillion dollars in the hole.

http://www.npr.org/about/privatesupport.html

NPR supports its operations through a combination of membership dues and programming fees from over 860 independent radio stations, sponsorship from private foundations and corporations, and revenue from the sales of transcripts, books, CDs, and merchandise. A very small percentage -- between one percent to two percent of NPR's annual budget -- comes from competitive grants sought by NPR from federally funded organizations, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Cutting 1-2% of their budget won't make a dent in our zillion dollar hole.
Cut the things that caused it. NPR's budget isn't one of them.

If you cut NPR, you do realize that another entity would win the grant thereby resulting in zero savings?
Like it says they are competitive grants. NPR isn't automatically handed grants on a silver platter, they need to compete for them.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dammitgibs

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: rudder
If this plan comes to fruition it would likely spell the death nell of many conservative type radio stations by making operating costs so high they will go bankrupt.

Otherwise they will have to make air opposing viewpoints as to not get fined.

Thank god and about damn time we get that shit off our airwaves.

The airwaves belong to the people not Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and the rest of the vile Anti-Americans.

You mean the people that listen to those talk show hosts who provide the ratings for the show that make advertisers want to advertise on their network that keep them in business? Or what people are you talking about that the airwaves belong to?

It does not belong to the advertisers.