CNN’s Carol Costello again omitted the liberal source of a statistic she touted during a report on Wednesday’s American Morning, that 91% of talk radio is apparently conservative. Costello also pushed the left-wing aim of localism in radio programming, playing three soundbites in favor of the proposal, versus two against it.
Near the end of her report, which aired at the bottom of the 7 am Eastern hour, the CNN correspondent cited ultra-left talker Randi Rhodes (all three clip in favor of localism came from Rhodes), who “says millions of Americans get their political talk from AM radio -- 91 percent of which is conservative.” Costello didn’t cite the source of the figure, which comes from a 2007 report by two liberal organizations -- the Center for American Progress and Free Press -- and co-authored by Mark Lloyd, who is now the FCC’s “chief diversity officer.” The correspondent touted the figure as well during a report on Monday’s American Morning, where she claimed that it came from “Talkers” magazine. The figure itself is misleading because, as MRC’s Culture and Media Institute pointed out, the CAP report ignored “non-commercial radio,” such as NPR and other public radio networks.
Earlier in the segment, Costello put the localism issue in the context of the past Fairness Doctrine, and before playing the first bite from Rhodes, acknowledged that “it’s unlikely the Fairness Doctrine will return, but there is something else many liberal talkers are fighting for- localism.” She also downplayed talk show host’s leftism, merely labeling her as a “progressive political talker.”
Rhodes came out of gate with her advocacy of localism in the first clip: “If you know that you live in a town where everybody votes Democratic [Washington, DC], and all you have on your radio is conservative talk, then you can see how localism isn’t part of the equation in media programming.” Costello then explained what that “localism...means radio stations would be forced to carry more local programming that appeals to local audiences. Right now, big broadcasting companies like ClearChannel Communications...own hundreds of radio stations across the country, and much of what they broadcast aren’t shows with local personalities, but syndicated shows featuring Rush Limbaugh...and Sean Hannity.”
Costello lined up a second bite from Rhodes before even turning to her two clips from critics of localism:
RHODES: Diversity always gets a better result than just as one steady- you know, lock-step repetition of talking - same talking points, over and over.COSTELLO: In November, the FCC will hold a media workshop, as is required every four years. Among the topics, the state of the current media marketplace.
BOB DURGIN: Men and women are dying over there-
COSTELLO: Bob Durgin, a conservative talker in Pennsylvania, is weary of localism.
DURGIN: They want to program the radio station. They want to tell the people what they’re going to hear. They don’t want the people hearing what they want to hear. They want the people to hear what they want the people to hear, and they want people to hear more liberal radio, more diversity.
COSTELLO: Durgin says liberals want it all, even though they have plenty now- not only on the radio and cable TV, but on commercial TV, and in Hollywood.
MICHAEL MOORE (from Capitalism: A Love Story): Congressman Dolittle, Michael Moore-
COSTELLO: Camille Paglia, a social critic and Obama supporter.
CAMILLE PAGLIA: I find the motivation for this- all this talk about the local show, is actually covert. It’s actually a way to try to ambush right-wing radio, which has indeed risen up as a powerful force, in response to the shutdown of conservative viewpoints coming from the major media.
The third clip from Rhodes came immediately after Costello used the dubious 91% statistic from the Center for American Progress report:
COSTELLO: Rhodes disagrees. She says millions of Americans get their political talk from AM radio: 91 percent of which is conservative.RHODES: I do want to be on their stations. I want a crack at their audience, and let me live and die by the success or failure. But I don’t have that access.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"91% of talk radio is
October 21, 2009 - 10:33 ET by notonmywatch"91% of talk radio is apparently conservative"
Yeah, so let's talk about TV. And I bet they're including leftist blowbags in that "conservative" list.
In a way, maybe it would help us if they screw up talk radio. That might be just the catalyst we need to REALLY get people moving.
___________________________________________________________
Graphical conservative commentary - animations & pictures for posting on forums: http://ubama.org/chu...
Stalker
October 21, 2009 - 13:39 ET by allanfRush Limbaugh comically refers to Carol Costello as his "stalker". The was the Secret Service code name for Monica Lewinsky.
What an idiot
October 21, 2009 - 10:37 ET by bre1227Why should Rhodes get access to conservative audiences? That's like saying I have to provide all my competitors with past and current client contact info.
Libs would end up regretting localism.
October 21, 2009 - 10:45 ET by mattmIf 91% of AM talk radio is conservative, maybe it's because 91% of all other media is liberal, and conservatives need some outlet for their viewpoint....ever think of that, you brain-dead liberal morons?
How's bout localism in TV networks, cable and sattelite, eh? Let's break up ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and I'll even throw in FOX, if you'll throw in PBS...
If it's a free market you want, let's apply it to all media, to all school systems and every other conduit of information!
Libs would never do that, because the end result would be an increasing dominance of conservative viewpoints - and why? Simple - because the conservative viewpoint makes far more sense than the liberal one, which has only been able to sustain itself via its monopoly on media and the schools.
How we do things
October 21, 2009 - 10:58 ET by KC MulvilleAnyone who pushes "localism" simply doesn't understand how America works. Talk radio is a function of free speech. "Localists" want to subordinate the free speech of individuals to the judgment of partisan bureaucrats about what constitutes political fairness.
In all these cases, from McCain-Feingold to the Fairness Doctrine to the war on FoxNews, we see the same syndrome: partisan politicians believe that they need to control what the public hears, because when the public is allowed to choose on their own, they happily listen to those who oppose the partisan's political agenda.
Think of the self-defeating logic behind their argument: Government is needed to control free speech ...
KC.. excellent! No citizen's
October 21, 2009 - 11:04 ET by celatorKC.. excellent!
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
When they do to
October 21, 2009 - 11:01 ET by buddycWhen they do to NBC/CBS/ABC/PBS/NRP what they want to do to talk radio, I will support them 100%. I want more diversity on the networks and public broadcast.
Btw, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a noise?
Needs Rework!
October 21, 2009 - 11:20 ET by slickwillie2001Someone needs to take a different look at this data. The 91% figure is garbage first of all, because it conveniently only looks at commercial talk radio. If you count public talk radio as well, the 91% figure drops considerably, to –who knows?
But most imporant, these figures represent the numbers of listeners, which is a measure of how much these talk radio hosts appeal to the audience. A more relevant determination of whether a systemic problem exists in talk radio is to look at how many people have liberal vs conservative talk radio available on the dial, whether they listen or not. Look at how many stations talk radio is on, liberal vs conservative, and what audience is in range of those stations. That will tell us whether there is a bias problem in radio station management and opportunity, or if the problem is simply listeners making a choice.
I know what the answer will be, but my thesis needs hard data.
Agreed
October 21, 2009 - 12:30 ET by KC MulvilleNote, though, that the standard reply is that rich, national conservative corporations rig the game by flooding money and advertising into local markets. (Of course, that's a crock. Why can't rich, national liberal corporations do the same? It's because they know they can't find an audience.)
Once again, we see liberals radio talkers fail, but they can't bring themselves to accept the verdict of the audience.
I think we're going to hear
October 21, 2009 - 11:35 ET by deerjerkydaveI think we're going to hear a lot more stories like this one in the future as the state-run media lay the political groundwork for their President who seems bent on the destruction of the 1st amendment.
Let's not forget Obama's disdain for the 2nd amendment. Gosh, how much more of the constitution does Obama hate? I guess according to this quote of his, a lot of it:
"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change." -B. H. Obama
http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/2001-obama-tragedy-that-redistribution-of-wealth-not-pursued-by-supreme-court-2/
Randi Rhodes gives good
October 21, 2009 - 13:42 ET by CO2Makernumbers? Randi "I fell and split my lip and can't say the F-word" Rhodes cites the figure of 91% conservative audience ... and Costello just accepts it? Did she get her statistics from the Rush Limbaugh Wiki List of Racist Rants?
Effect of diversity
October 21, 2009 - 13:47 ET by CO2MakerSo let's say this localism rule goes into effect. Now the successful, profitable station that provides employment for lots of people by broadcasting a 24-hour schedule of sports, weather, and right-wing talk radio switches to sports and gardening, weather, and 50-50 lefty and righty talkers. Listeners bail out in droves, Arbitron numbers tank, ad revenues follow the numbers (like CO2 levels follow atmospheric temperatures), and the station is looking at a profit-loss statement that doesn't show any profit. Hmmm. Sounds like unemployment time. But the diversity of localism was a good thing. Another example of a successful operation after which the patient died.
The problem of the pie
October 21, 2009 - 14:04 ET by CO2MakerLet's say you have a party and bake a pie. But you are surprised by the number of people who showed up and how many of them want some of the pie.
What do you do?
1. Cut the pie into thinner slices and draw straws to see who will get one of the slices?
2. Bake bigger pies or even more pies?
What happens if you put the apple pie on one table and the cherry pie on another table, and more people want apple than cherry?
3. Cut the apple pie into thinner slices?
4. Mix the slices of pie at each table, so that each pie contains half apple and half cherry slices (and draw straws to see who chooses first)?
5. Bake (or buy) more pies?
What happens when some guests complain that there aren't any pies that reflect their life experiences, like, you know, pecan pies for Southerners (or banana pudding--yum!)?
6. Remove half of the cherry and half of the apple slices, in acknowledgment of the cultural insensitivity to the Pecanners?
7. Diversify the existing cherry and apple pies by sprinkling pecan chips on them?
What do you do to remedy the pie crisis?
8. Terminate the party, ask volunteers to stay behind as a committee to study the disparate impact of the insensitive and falsely "normative" choices of apple and cherry--making sure, of course, that the study committee reflected the diversity of all of the party goers who just went home when the party was cancelled.
9. Issue a report via email or Twitter to the other party goers and invite them to a new party, at a date to be decided later by consensus (with assistance from Acorn) that respects the life experiences of all the party goers who originally attended and all the others who were overlooked because they weren't listed properly on the party rolls.
Then what? What happens when they switch to cakes?
"RHODES: I do want to be on
October 21, 2009 - 15:06 ET by George S Patton"RHODES: I do want to be on their stations. I want a crack at their audience, and let me live and die by the success or failure. But I don’t have that access. "
Sorry moron, no one wants to listen to your garbage.
Randi, as in, lusting after audiences
October 21, 2009 - 15:02 ET by CO2Maker"I do want to be on their stations. I want a crack at their audience, and let me live and die by the success or failure. But I don’t have that access."
Hi and bye, Sean, Rush, Mark. Thanks for getting a big audience for me. I know I couldn't have done it on my own. No seriously, I couldn't-a. I tried, and it didn't work out. But thanks for setting up the audience for me. I gotta tell you, though, if the audience leaves and the listener numbers go down in my time slot, well, that't clearly a problem of the wrong audience. It's their fault. If my numbers go down on me, I'll be on the lookout for other time slots with better listeners.
So the liberals require the
October 21, 2009 - 15:09 ET by nadadhimmiSo the liberals require the feds to legislate their competitors out of business. Next they will make it a requirement that we watch their propaganda so many hrs a day. Monitered by the govt and enforced by fines and imprisonment dontcha know.
Wrong
October 21, 2009 - 17:57 ET by Doug-LifeThere is no right-wing conspiracy going on. Ask anyone in radio- it's one of the most fickle businesses there is. If a station thought it could get more advertisers from a liberal show with a larger audiance it would fire a conservative host in a heartbeat.
91% of
October 22, 2009 - 08:46 ET by jessieH91% of Americans are conservatives.
What controversy??????
October 22, 2009 - 13:11 ET by baroooskThere is no controversy over the fact that 91% of talk radio is conseravtive. This fact has never been denied by any leading talk host, (liberal or conservative), any syndication company like Premiere or the Talk Radio Network, or Talkers Magazine (the leading trade magazine). Your the first person that I am aware of to challenge this fact. When you have some time go to Arbitron.com and add up all the stations that offer conservative talk. There are about 1200 and multiply that number times their average rating. Then add up all the stations that offer liberal talk. There are about 60 and do the same. You will find that convervative talk accounts for something north of 90% of the talk radio audience. It is simply indisputable that conservative talk dominates commercial talk radio. End of story.