The NPR effect

The problem with this argument is that talk radio represents only about 3-4% of the radio market. Mr Limbaugh, the biggest right-wing talker, draws 13.5m listeners a week. National Public Radio, which strives to be fair and balanced but leans to the left, draws 20m. The shock jocks who rule many urban markets are also vaguely leftish: Don Imus, who was dumped for his comment about “nappy-headed hosâ€Â? but who is reportedly planning a comeback, was almost as scathing about George Bush as he was about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team. The reason why the likes of Sinclair Broadcast Group have done so well out of talk radio is that they found a market niche of people who feel that their views are marginalised by mainstream radio. One reason why Air America found it hard to find talent and listeners is that most liberals are perfectly happy with NPR.

An interesting observation there – Liberal radio stations cannot make because their audience is siphoned away be a government subsidized national broadcast. Kind of ironic …. no?

Are you saying you have no voice unless you own a radio station? That someone has to pay for your radio station? There is far far more radio bandwidth than there are radio stations to use it.

Do you have any idea at all of what it takes to actually start a station and acquire a license? Are you aware of how rapidly the radio business is being consolidated in a relatively few hands?

If there is an audience for a station I guarantee someone will build it.

The good old “The free market always works and can never be manipulated.” argument. It’s a loser every time.

“Have you forgotten that not only must you be able to afford some very expensive equipment but also bid on the bandwidth, a proposition that costs many millions of dollars at the least?” -js

Jim, I am not sure what you are advocating but you ought to read Chesty’s comment. Are you saying you have no voice unless you own a radio station? That someone has to pay for your radio station? There is far far more radio bandwidth than there are radio stations to use it. If there is an audience for a station I guarantee someone will build it. The problem with Radio now, is that there is not enough audience to keep the number of stations we have alive. Too many people making free choices and getting music and news and opinion from other sources like ipods and internet and satellite I guess.

BTW, you do understand that if you don’t like what you are listening to you can change the station right? Thats what the little buttons are for. If you don’t like NPR, turn on Rush or vice versa. The most ludicrous element of the “Fairness Doctrine” is that anyone would sit there and listen to an opposing view that they don’t want to hear. Do you really think someone listening to Bill Moyer on NPR is going keep their finger off the button because the Fairness Doctrine says they now have to play a Sean Hannity wannabe? I’d probably break a finger switching channels myself. Good thing I’ve got health insurance.

Perhaps to be really fair we need to expand the concept to a Listener and Watcher Fairness Doctrine, so that the Bill Mahre watchers are legally required to watch an equal amount of Anne Coulter. That would be fair. I know! we’ll install a fairness chip in every radio and TV, then we’ll rate and digitally encode every single show on a right vs. left scale. If you want to watch or listen to a right wing show, then you have to spend an equal amount of time with a left wing show or else the radio/TV will turn itself off. Now That would be really fair!

Justice Frankfurter said the answer to speech you disagree with is always MORE SPEECH, NOT LESS.

It will never happen…but lets assume that it does. The conservative “side” will spend half of its time demeaning the “affirmative action” “side” which can’t compete in the market without government coercion. It would be great.

This is an opening to tyranny for no good reason, except the bruised egos of Democrats.