Monday, April 18, 2005

Hate radio: radio the left hates?

The left has created Air America as a counter to conservative talk radio in general, and Rush Limbaugh in particular. Its debut was marked with loads of publicity and hype, in a marked contrast to conservative radio programs. Compare, for example, the apparent newsworthiness of William Bennet's morning show, which launched on the same day.

Yet, despite bankrolling and the free publicity it received...

Air America's left-wing answer to conservative talk radio is failing, just as previous efforts to find liberal Rush Limbaughs have failed.

People aren't tuning in. Air America stations in major markets have had to close up because they were unable to pay their bills.

And look at Air America's ratings: They're pitifully weak, even in places where you would think they'd be strong. WLIB, its flagship in New York City, has sunk to 24th in the metro area Arbitron ratings — worse than the all-Caribbean format it replaced, notes the Radio Blogger. In the liberal meccas of San Francisco and Los Angeles, Air America is doing lousier still.

...continued in full post...

Reasons given for this failure are condescending, and self-serving, including:

Some on the left say it's because liberals are, well, smarter and can't convey their sophisticated ideas to the rubes who listen to talk radio. <snip> Yet even if we were to grant the premise that conservative talk radio can sometimes be crudely simplistic — a tough charge to make stick against, say, one-time philosophy professor Bennett or Clarence Thomas' former law clerk Laura Ingraham — how can anyone plausibly believe the right has a monopoly on misleading argument? Moreover, talk-show fans aren't dummies. Industry surveys show that talk-radio fans vote in greater percentages than the general public, tend to be college-educated and read more magazines and newspapers than the average American.

"How can anyone plausibly believe the right has a monopoly on misleading argument?" Well, the left is doing its very best to make that very case. Are they part of "anybody"? Or is it possible they're lying?

One of the reasons for the success of conservative talk radio is media bias.

Liberal bias in the old media. That's what birthed talk radio in the first place. People turn to it to help right the imbalance. Political scientist William Mayer, writing in the Public Interest, recently observed that liberals don't need talk radio because they've got the big three networks, most national and local daily newspapers and NPR.

And this bias is another thing that's hard to plausibly deny. In the words of one major newspaper's ombudsman, anyone who hasn't seen the left-leaning bias in the papers "has been reading them with their eyes closed." Alternatively, they see it just fine, and report otherwise for their own purposes.

And, unable to succeed against talk radio on merit, the left is perfectly willing to regulate it out of existence.

If some liberals had their way, Congress would regulate political talk radio out of existence. Their logic is that scrapping Air America would be no loss if it also meant getting Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Bennett off the air. <snip> Pre-Reagan, talk radio in today's sense simply didn't exist. What station could risk it? But people listen to conservative talk because they want to, not because the post-Fairness Doctrine regulatory regime forces them to. To claim that "diversity of view" is lacking in the era of blogs and cable news, moreover, is downright silly. Complaints about fairness are really about driving out conservative viewpoints.

The people who listen to talk radio, and watch Fox News, know what they're getting through the mainstream media. And they know what they're getting through the alternative channels – the other half of the debate. And those who claim to want diversity? They're the ones who want to stamp it out.

Sure, talk radio is partisan, sometimes overheated. But it's also a source of argument and information. Together with Fox News and the blogosphere, it has given the right a chance to break through the liberal monoculture and be heard. For that, anyone who supports spirited public debate should be grateful.

But they're not.

No comments: