|
Common sense on what makes talk radio work
Posted by Scott on the forums on July 19, 2007
The left has attempted to reinstate "Fairness" Doctrine-like control
over talk radio as liberal hosts haven't gained traction in the
marketplace. They claim that they aren't looking to reinstate the
doctrine per se, but instead forward the hollow argument that
"diversity of ownership" - compelling the government to further limit
the number of stations a company can own in each market - will foster
more voices and ideas on radio, ignoring the inconvenient fact that the
largest radio conglomerate, Clear Channel, put most of the liberal
talkers on the air, abandoning the format only when it didn't attract
sufficient listeners or advertisers.
Here's a common sense commentary on why some talk radio works and some doesn't - as we well know, it boils down to humor and clarity.
Conservative
talk radio flourishes because its listening audience buys the products
its sponsors advertise. No one is compelled to listen to conservative
talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham; just as
no one forces people to watch liberal television personalities such as
Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Bill Maher.
Whether talk
radio’s subject matter is politics, sports or advice about marriage, a
talk-show host has one clear purpose — to keep the listening audience
interested and entertained long enough so the show’s sponsors can play
commercials between the chatter.
Advertisers understand that
listening audiences will purchase products if they tune in long enough;
and people will stay tuned only if they perceive a value to what is
being discussed on a particular show. Conversely, without a perceived
value, people won’t tune in, sponsors will go bye-bye and that air time
will be filled by different programming.
To quote successful
radio talk-show host, Neil Boortz, “Talk radio listeners will accept
and tolerate any position on any issue if it’s presented with
rationality and a modicum of logic. They’ll also tolerate irrational
and illogical banter provided it’s presented with a sense of humor.”
The
author, a business consultant, doesn't come out and tag Air America's
real reasons for failure - that its hosts are bitter bores - but he
gets the rest of it right.
...unlike the print media, whose
opinions are guaranteed by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled
in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) that print media and
broadcast media were inherently different. The court reasoned “the
right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters …
is paramount …”
However, five years later in a separate case,
the court came to a different conclusion and said that the Fairness
Doctrine “… inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of
public debate.” Broadcast media in the 21st century, cable TV’s
virtually unlimited programming potential and the ubiquitous use of the
blogosphere with its two million postings per day creates a very
different media landscape from what it was when the Supreme Court made
its rulings almost 40 years ago.
In today’s world, if there’s
a willing audience, a venue for that audience will manifest itself,
however, as always, the operative words remain, “a willing audience.”
The
government can't create a "willing audience" any more than it can
create a love for taxes. Of course, once it creates a tax, it's pretty
much there in perpetuity. That's why congress was able to fork, I mean
pork, over $420 million of our tax dollars to "public" broadcasting
despite the President's plan to eliminate it, and despite the fact that
"public" broadcasting is doing fine on its own. What a deal.
It's
amazing that there was ever the will to get rid of the disasterous
"Fairness" Doctrine. Of course, it wasn't congress that scrapped the
pig, but Reagan, by veto, and it's a classic example of how things
improve when you get the government out of the picture. That was a
magical 8 year period we'll probably never see again in our lifetime.
|