Re: You say the right wing owns the media?

I never said the right wing owns the mainstream media. I said corporations own the media. (This is not up for debate). And corporations, being risk-averse and profit-driven and fearful of losing their corporate advertisers, embrace and defend the status quo, whatever that is, until they see that popular opinion is steadily growing against it, at which time they jump on the bandwagon and begin to tell people what they have already figured out for themselves. Thus, we can say that our corporate media is inherently cautious, behind the curve, and conservative. However, regional differences do come into play (see below).

This WND story is paranoid. I'll tell you why. Look at your friends at FOX. They use AP and Reuters wire reports all the time. Why? Because it saves them tons of money. They can employ fewer reporters and still cover all the news. Wire services also save them the need to have expensive overseas news bureaus. Pay attention to FOX's international news coverage. It is most often from wire reports. At least much more often than CNN's news.

This is a business decision by FOX/News Corp., not a news decision. When it comes to U.S. politics, where FOX knows its bread is buttered and its viewers/readers actually give a damn, they more often report their own stories. But even here, if the news topic is not "controversial" (read: exploitable for right-wing propaganda purposes) then FOX usually goes with the wire reports.

If George Soros is funding the AP (which seems odd/unbelievable to me), then you know what? Let him. You can't stop him. It's a free country with free enterprise and he can do what he wants with his $ billions. Apparently FOX owner Rupert Murdoch chooses to save his money for things other than reporting the news, which is not such a profitable venture. More power to him. It's much more profitable to print/broadcast opinions about the news, which is why commentary is interwoven into just about all news coverage on FOX tv, to the point where sometimes you don't know if they're reporting a story or commenting on it.

Speaking more broadly, I marvel at how conservatives point to the New York Times, Washington Post, and LA Times as examples of the ubiquitous lib'rul media (which is a debatable claim, but I'll let it pass), but they never mention the conservative Cincinnati Enquirer, New York Post, Washington Times, or Dallas Morning News. Why? Because outside those local news markets, people don't read those conservative local papers. (The conservative Wall Street Journal and its sister publication Financial Times are probably the only real exceptions, with substantial national and global readership.) Whereas outside the NYC, DC, and LA news markets, people do read that local "liberal" news -- all over the world, in fact.

So... what you're really complaining about, when you think about it, is that news consumers in the global marketplace of ideas seems to prefer "liberal" news from America's more liberal coastal capitals over news produced by America's smaller Midwestern cities or fringe conservative coastal papers. Anyway, I don't know what grounds you have to complain. You live in a conservative locality, and your local paper caters to that political preference. You should be a happy consumer. Yet you're not. Why? Because you regard news not as information but primarily as propaganda (just admit it) with the power to persuade (read: bamboozle) people into accepting a certain world view. I mean, your mind is made up, nothing's going to change it, even if George Soros buys your local paper tomorrow. You're worried about what information other people are consuming, because you want your side to reach them and "win." If the other side's worldview seems to dominate, that upsets you, because your side's propaganda is losing its voice in the market.

In other words, if you think the U.S. media is biased, then you have nobody to blame but the free market, which you say you adore.

I wish all you laissez-faire Republicans would stop whining about the mythical lib'rul media. You've got your propaganda from FOX, talk radio, Drudge, Townhall.com, WND, etc., which filter out for you most of the information you don't want to know. And you've got a cowardly, corporate-owned mainstream media that jumps at the sight of its own shadow. Obviously, you're finding myriad ways to stay misinformed, and you're smugly satisfied with your level of un-knowledge. Rejoice.

Your only alternative is to throw your free-market principles out the window and endorse some kind of Fairness Doctrine. So which is it gonna be?

Whither the watchdogs?

By Joseph Farah

August 13, 2009 | WorldNetDaily

URL: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106676

Essay: 'Fairness Doctrine' Still A Dumb Idea

Why not take over the AV club or the KKK while we're at it?

I'm not going to pretend I know all the ins and outs of the proposed "Fairness Doctrine" that is now being revived by Congressional Democrats. I don't have to. It's dumb legislation aimed primarily (or even entirely, I don't know) at talk radio.

To paraphrase one proponent of the Fairness Doctrine, "Because the government issues these limited [radio airwave] licenses to operate, they already have authority to say who gets a license and who doesn't." In other words, the radio airwaves are not exactly a free speech zone, since Big Gubument is already regulating them, so let's regulate them to death.

Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water. Clearly, the sole reason for government regulation is the limited number of radio frequencies available for use. As long as what those private broadcasters air does not violate basic free speech and obscenity laws, the left-right content is irrelevant.

As we all know (sigh), talk radio is dominated by conservatives from FOX and ClearChannel. Liberals see some big corporate conspiracy here. Well, they're partly right. It has been conservatives' intent to take over talk radio completely, drowning out liberal and moderate voices. But conservatives did it in the open, by playing hardball, buying up the big stations and local affliliates, and attracting the most advertising revenue. That's capitalism. That's our country, for better or worse.

So, to subvert the 1st Amendment by making private broadcasting companies air views (and commentators) that they don't want to is fascist. It's wrong. It's dumb. And worst of all, it's unnecessary.

I won't be the first person to point out that there is not some magical left-wing antidote to every poisonous right-wing lie or inaccuracy. In fact, there may be a multiplicity of views which all tend to contradict talk radio's monolithic angry-white-guy stance on the issues.

But that doesn't really matter either. The very attempt to balance talk radio's successful populist conservative formula with a dash of liberalism here, a pinch of libertarianism there, is a fool's alchemy. Not only is it impossible to "balance" the opinions expressed; but more importantly: WHO CARES?

Just who listens to talk radio anyway, raise your hand? If you're a cab driver, traveling salesman, or similar, put your hand down. OK, who's left? Retirees? Shut-ins? Lonely, squirrely employees who pester their colleagues for the right to listen to Rush "at a reasonable volume" from 12-3 p.m. everyday?

I mean, who has the time to devote 3-9 hours a day to Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, Savage, and (fill in your local right-wing nut's Name here)? I used to listen to Liddy and Limbaugh -- when I was a teenage dumbass with a lot of time on my hands. But now, even if I wanted to, I couldn't do it. Because I HAVE A JOB.

Unless somebody can answer me the aforementioned question, I must conclude that the only people listening to talk radio are: angry cab drivers; itinerant salesmen; immobile retirees and invalids; assembly line/back office workers; the self-loathing unemployed; and very confused teenagers (like my former self).

Not exactly an all-star team of ass-kicking capitalist movers & shakers for whom you'd tear up the Bill of Rights (via the Fairness Doctrine) to persuade with your nuanced and learned views, eh?

Look, let these losers have talk radio. It's theirs anyway, face it. The near bankruptcy of liberal Air America has proven that. Big deal. Liberal and moderate voices dominate the blogosphere and almost every other media outlet -- not because they conspired to do so, but because such people are generally more creative, dynamic, artistic, and engaging than rigid conservative ideologues who instinctively distrust creativity and somebody having a good time.

AM talk radio is the ghetto of major media. It's "free" to listen to, but you do pay the price of enduring about 2 hours of commercials during a 3-hour show. That kind of content-to-advertising ratio is way more than that of free network TV. Why? Because AM talk radio is so bad, the only way advertisers will agree to buy air time and keep it afloat is if the ads are comparatively cheap and plentiful. (That's why you'll hear advertisers you never heard of elsewhere only on talk radio.)

Like crack, the talk radio ghetto's daily dose of anger is profitable because it's so cheap & easy to produce -- and reproduce. Most of your production costs go toward one loudmouthed, angry white guy's salary (and nowadays, angry white guys are a dime a dozen). And through syndication, the angry white host's daily rants can be cheaply mass-produced nationwide.

Alternatively, lower-tier angry white hosts (local DJs) can swipe their material from the big fish like Hannity, Limbaugh, Liddy and O'Reilly. The local guy's listeners won't care. In fact, they'll love him more for it. Indeed, endless repetition is part of the formula: The more times angry listeners hear the same "truth" from more angry mouths, the more it is reinforced, and the more they want to hear it. Everybody wins, from the big fish to the small fry.

Talk radio is a virtual community (a ghetto) where angry people go slumming to get their daily anger fix. And, just like real ghettos, all the AM ghettos are pretty much alike, which is comforting to a certain type of person. You know what you'll find there. It's a safe, out-of-the-way place to be angry & mean. Nobody hears you but four echoing walls.

In real life people can't allow themselves to be this ornery, because no one would tolerate their company. But in the hermetic isolation of locked sedan, closed office, or shady parlor, it's perfectly OK to wish violent revenge on treasonous, traitorous liberals, and take pleasure in knowing that thousands (or millions) of listeners are spewing their bile -- privately, harmlessly -- along with you.

(Interestingly, as Jack Shafer wrote in Slate in 2005, FOX's relative success in cable news is thanks to following the talk-radio formula: (1) "finding stories and causes that will make white, middle-class [people] feel angry and disgusted, and then hammering away at these stories/causes day after day;" and (2) various talk-radio techniques to grab your attention and keep you on-message: cut-ins for news briefs every 30 minutes; segments running 10 minutes or less; and constant "sweepers" -- tag lines the show or the station wants its audience to associate with it, like "Fair and Balanced" and "No Spin Zone.").

So I say, let them keep it. Give up the fight to win over talk radio listeners. We don't want them; and they can't be persuaded.

But we can rest assured. After all, talk radio fans live under a kind of voluntary "house arrest:" For most of the day we know where they are and what they're up to. At least they're not getting outside, trying to persuade and organize others (besides their poor kids).

And when you think about it, they're really only talking to themselves. On the street when you encounter a crazy guy talking to himself, you may shake your head, but you just step aside and leave him be.

Forget the Fairness Doctrine. Just let them be.