Radio: It's about local, dammit

What's really wrong with talk radio isn't the imbalance between right and left - it's local vs. national, live vs. syndicated
|
(8)

By Johnny Angel Wendell

arts@sfbg.com

As the 2010 midterm elections approach, so rises the heat level in one of the American news media's most vitriolic battlegrounds: AM (and increasingly FM) news/talk radio. Dominated almost entirely by the American right in all its permutations, the genre is part of what Hillary Clinton once deemed a "vast right-wing conspiracy." And while she may have overstated the case somewhat, talk radio is the angry white male's jungle drum. As the broadcast point for the economic and social theorizing emanating from billionaire-funded think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, as well as repeating anti-government (when the government is not being run by Republicans) doggerel whose roots run all the way back to Father Coughlin's screeds in the 1930s, it's as effective a tool for mounting outrage (which is never aimed at corporate America, a telling sign, populism-wise).

Because of this obvious one-sidedness masquerading as news, many media critics on the left have demanded the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine — a law enacted in 1949 that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present issues of public importance in a way that a government commission deemed fair and equal, so both sides of an issue got equal time. The doctrine remained the standard by which talk radio operated until it was repealed in the late 1980s. Shortly after that, Rush Limbaugh began his ascent to the summit of talk radio, becoming its most popular voice. If the Fairness Doctrine was still in place, however, that might never have happened.

President Obama has said that he has no interest in restoring the doctrine, claiming it's a distraction. Despite the fact that reinstating it would personally benefit yours truly as a left-leaning talk show host, I'm also opposed to it — it does not solve what truly ails talk radio today.

What's really wrong with talk isn't the imbalance between right and left — it's local vs. national, live vs. syndicated. Tune in to nearly 80 percent of talk outside of morning and afternoon drive time, and it's one national show after another: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Dr. Laura. Their politics are irrelevant — they're broadcasting on local frequencies and not discussing local events.

Talk radio does not need partisan balance. At this point, half the country gets its news from the Internet, where thousands of Web sites provide every conceivable point of view. What talk does need — and badly — is a requirement that stations devote at least half their time to local issues. Most of the day or part of the evening should be devoted to what actually affects the audience — schools, traffic, cops, corruption, our kids, our money, what we see and hear right in front of us.

Radio chains might scream bloody murder at this because syndication is cheaper. But the two most popular AM stations in the state — KFI AM640 in Los Angeles and KGO 810 in San Francisco — are locally-based stations. KGO has no syndicated programming at all Monday through Friday, and consistently has been the top-rated station in the city.

A Fairness Doctrine would be seen (rightfully so) as a way to shut up the right. But a 50/50 Doctrine would not — and given that the polarity of opinion on local issues is less (because it's real and present), the blatant disregard for fact would evaporate quickly. This is worth lobbying for — if anything meant "bringing it all back home," local talk would be the optimal place to begin. *

Johnny Angel Wendell is a talk show host at KTLK AM 1150 in Los Angeles and has been on Green 960 and KIFR 106.8 in SF.

Comments

As a progressive, I'm sure glad we have all the network and cable TV channels in OUR pocket! I'd much rather have that than old fashioned radio.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 31, 2010 @ 7:58 pm

For years, the educated masses spoke of the New York Times in the highest regard. The New York Times was and is the home of Liberal/Progressive logical thought. The right has complained that the New York Times was slanted and no other points of view were represented. The New York Times for years and years said that was rubbish. Reading The New York Times though, mainly Liberal think tanks were used as sources. When a conservative think tank is used as a source, it iss identified as a conservative source. When a Liberal source is used, it is not identified as a liberal source. There is no problem being a Liberal newspaper. It is actually a wonderful thing. The only issue I have is that it should be admitted.

Talkradio is the New York Times of Conservatives! Instead of the playing that both points of view were equally presented, Talkradio just openly said its point of view.

Pretty cool. Pretty open.

Posted by talkingprofessional on Apr. 01, 2010 @ 4:06 am

Comparing a newspaper--which is printed and does not broadcast in real time solely because said (one) newspaper is supposedly liberal as opposed to an entire genre of media (radio, spoken), is beyond apples and oranges ridiculous.The OpEd page of a newspaper is only one section of the paper, talk radio is nothing but OpEd's.

Not to mention a speciously bad example--the NYT was the conduit for which enormous amounts of Bush Administration propaganda was injected into the American mainstream via Judith Miller. Because the paper was seen as "liberal" (despite always having rightist OpEd's in my lifetime, from Safire and Buchanan to the odious David Brooks), it legitimatized Miller's outright fabrications, fed to her by Iranian double agent Ahmed Chalabi. Where on talk radio is the leftward equivalent to this?

The idea that talk radio has to be some kind of conservative counterbalance to the (nonexistent) liberal media is a copout invoked by the right to justify its absurd one-sidedness. . What talk radio is now is lazy--put a handful of syndicated Limbaugh imitators on and the dittoheads won't complain to management. The result is more of the same is seen as an industry standard, well, said industry's revenues have fallen for four straight years. As a "talking professional", this should alarm you a little, but not as much as the idea that a diverse POV should re-populate the radio, right?

Thought so.

Posted by Johnny Wendell on Apr. 01, 2010 @ 5:52 am

This certainly IS a left/right problem. I agree that it's also a national/local problem, but that doesn't mean the left/right one doesn't exist.

Most people in this country still get their information from TV. When TV only spews corporate propaganda, that's what most people "know." Without the Fairness Doctrine, this country has moved very far to the right. I'm not saying that the lack of Fairness Doctrine was the only -- or even main -- reason, but it certainly didn't help.

Rich people, in the form of corporations, stole the airwaves in the first place. The least government can do is regulate them so that all sides get heard. Anything less is unfair, illegitimate, and immoral.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on Apr. 01, 2010 @ 2:29 pm

I think reinstating something akin to the Fairness Doctrine for terrestrial radio is a good idea. The key is broadcasting in the public interest. Simply put, conservative corporate interests are not 100% consistent with the public interest.

Unlike the internet, which is expensive to broadcast and receive, free terrestrial radio is very inexpensive to receive since radios are so cheap. Therefore, poorer people are far more likely to get their news from free terrestrial radio instead of the internet, newspapers or television. With a limited broadcasting spectrum, it's in the public interest that poorer folks with fewer ways of getting news deserve to hear more than just a corporate take on the events of the day.

Even if folks aren't poor, the limited free terrestrial radio bandwidth should be shared simply for the fact that the only lawful way for drivers to get news is through the radio. It's not in the public's interest if the vast majority of opinions heard on free radio have a corporate perspective.

For instance, corporate free terrestrial radio suggests that the best way to broadcast information to help a commuter in a car is to give traffic and weather reports every 10 minutes during rush hour. It's a sad state of affairs that the radio broadcast will say "it's a one hour commute to the airport", but neglect to mention the reason it's taking so long to get to the airport is because 95% of the people on the highway are driving alone, and the entire right side of their car is blocking a possible lane of traffic.

True reporting of the public interest of this unbelievable waste of time and energy would be to focus on manufacturing and driving ultra narrow cars like the Tango (see www.commutercars.com) since, seated in tandem, the cars are narrow enough to split lanes.

Unfortunately, since the auto companies spend so much money on advertising with the radio programs, they can limit the conversation about changing the system of commuting to mind numbing discussions of traffic times which doesn't attempt to resolve our issues at all. The big car companies aren't interested in changing the shape of the cars because they won't make as much money. The corporate radio stations have brain washed the public and government into thinking these reports are in the public interest when they have the opposite effect - they stop folks from thinking of traffic jams as an issue with a solution other than waiting it out. The self interest of the corporate cozy relationship between the auto manufacturing advertisers and the radio show producers precludes an honest debate how to stop traffic jams.

Even worse, the corporate radio stations will shun their own money making powers if it gets in the way of their political agenda.

In their protests about a new Fairness Doctrine, conservatives say they are interested in protecting free speech. Where were they when the best and most successful liberal talk show host of all time, Howard Stern, was being fined by the government for "obscenity"? They certainly weren't backing him up. Stern stated that he was receiving unprecedented pressure from the government in the form of FCC fines after he began to broadcast protests against the Bush administration. Did they protest his fines for limiting freedom of speech? Nope. Did they suggest that the market should decide if he should stay on terrestrial radio? Nope. Even though he was making money hand over fist for his radio bosses, they didn’t defend him at all.

Conservatives are only interested in protecting conservative free speech. It's not in the public interest to let them corner the market on national or local terrestrial radio content.

Posted by Michael Weiser on Apr. 01, 2010 @ 9:07 pm

I think reinstating something akin to the Fairness Doctrine for terrestrial radio is a good idea. The key is broadcasting in the public interest. Simply put, conservative corporate interests are not 100% consistent with the public interest.

Unlike the internet, which is expensive to broadcast and receive, free terrestrial radio is very inexpensive to receive since radios are so cheap. Therefore, poorer people are far more likely to get their news from free terrestrial radio instead of the internet, newspapers or television. With a limited broadcasting spectrum, it's in the public interest that poorer folks with fewer ways of getting news deserve to hear more than just a corporate take on the events of the day.

Even if folks aren't poor, the limited free terrestrial radio bandwidth should be shared simply for the fact that the only lawful way for drivers to get news is through the radio. It's not in the public's interest if the vast majority of opinions heard on free radio have a corporate perspective.

For instance, corporate free terrestrial radio suggests that the best way to broadcast information to help a commuter in a car is to give traffic and weather reports every 10 minutes during rush hour. It's a sad state of affairs that the radio broadcast will say "it's a one hour commute to the airport", but neglect to mention the reason it's taking so long to get to the airport is because 95% of the people on the highway are driving alone, and the entire right side of their car is blocking a possible lane of traffic.

True reporting of the public interest of this unbelievable waste of time and energy would be to focus on manufacturing and driving ultra narrow cars like the Tango (see www.commutercars.com) since, seated in tandem, the cars are narrow enough to split lanes.

Unfortunately, since the auto companies spend so much money on advertising with the radio programs, they can limit the conversation about changing the system of commuting to mind numbing discussions of traffic times which doesn't attempt to resolve our issues at all. The big car companies aren't interested in changing the shape of the cars because they won't make as much money. The corporate radio stations have brain washed the public and government into thinking these reports are in the public interest when they have the opposite effect - they stop folks from thinking of traffic jams as an issue with a solution other than waiting it out. The self interest of the corporate cozy relationship between the auto manufacturing advertisers and the radio show producers precludes an honest debate how to stop traffic jams.

Even worse, the corporate radio stations will shun their own money making powers if it gets in the way of their political agenda.

In their protests about the Fairness Doctrine, conservatives say they are interested in protecting free speech. Where were they when the best and most successful liberal talk show host of all time, Howard Stern, was being fined by the government for "obscenity"? They certainly weren't backing him up. Stern stated that he was receiving unprecedented pressure from the government in the form of FCC fines after he began to broadcast protests against the Bush administration. Did they protest his fines for limiting freedom of speech? Nope. Did they suggest that the market should decide if he should stay on terrestrial radio? Nope. Even though he was making money hand over fist for his radio bosses, they didn’t defend him at all.

Conservatives are only interested in protecting conservative free speech. It's not in the public interest to let them corner the market on national or local terrestrial radio content.

Posted by Michael Weiser on Apr. 01, 2010 @ 9:09 pm

We have a Democrat president, House and Senate by wide margins. Yes, it would be optimal if Obama, Pelosi and Reid weren't of the appeasing mindset, but they are (technically) left of center in America.

Don't know as the media affects voting as much as you think it does.

Posted by Johnny Wendell on Apr. 02, 2010 @ 2:16 pm

The Democratic and Republican parties have moved very far to the right in the past 40 or so years. Nixon, if he espoused the same policies, would be too liberal to even get nominated by the Democrats today. The fact that corporate Democrats now control the White House and Congress does not mean that the U.S. has not moved very far to the right, which it clearly has.

Re media effects on voting: The average American watches what, 6-8 hours of TV/day. There are obvious and subtle influences that TV produces. What has been shown is that people who watch more TV have more conservative attitudes. Don't know that anyone has ever studied the correlation between watching TV and/or listening to corporate radio and voting, but that would be very interesting.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on Apr. 03, 2010 @ 9:46 am