Talk Radio...who is really allowed to "talk" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dc_dux · 09-25-2006, 09:28 PM

I thought this "survey" of radio talk show accessibility was interesting, although I would be the first to say, it has no real validity, based on such a small sample, etc):

Quote:

Research 2000 recently conducted a survey testing whether progressive or conservative talk radio shows are more open to callers with dissenting points of view. The organization made 15 calls (with a point of view that was not compatible with the host) to six radio shows — three progressive (Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz) and three conservative (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh).

The rankings:

1. Ed Schultz
2. Randi Rhodes
3. Stephanie Miller
4. Laura Ingraham
5. Rush Limbaugh
6. Sean Hannity

– Progressive host Ed Schultz was the most accessible to callers with opposing points of view. “In fact, the only question the screener asked our fifteen callers was simply where are you calling from, radio call letters and your name.”

– Conservative host Sean Hannity was the least accessible. Not a single of the 15 calls Research 2000 made were accepted. “Eleven of our callers with dissenting view points were told by the screener either ‘I will pass it on’ or ‘call our liberal hotline’ and then disconnected.”

– “Only two callers of fifteen dissenting view points was successful in getting on the Rush Limbaugh show. Both callers went through three screeners on the show before getting on the air with the host.”

– Ingraham, Miller, and Rhodes showed “no significant differences” in getting on the air “if one had a dissenting view point.” But the wait time for the Laura Ingraham show was the longest of the three — 40 minutes to one hour and 15 minutes.

http://www.research2000.us/2006/09/2...urvey-results/

Any personal experiences? I have to admit never trying to call Rush or Sean, although I do listen to Sean on occasion just to get the *right* spin of the day.

Ustwo · 09-25-2006, 11:16 PM

With a seven second delay on the radio, a talk show host should not have to screen their callers. Hopefully, all talk show formats in the future will follow the format of Ed Shultz.

Even with screeners 'trolls' get through now and then and its bad radio when they have to hit the delay and wait. It happens even with sports radio, I can't imagine that for politics. If that is the conclusion of the study its not much of a study.

Hannity I could see not allowing liberals on unless they are guests when I've heard his show, its really not much of a show, its more cheerleading. He also takes very few calls.

Limbaugh I haven't listened to in a couple of years, but when I did he would often have Liberals on, including liberals only segments.

I think one small flaw to this study is the size of the shows involved, how many callers they get, and how many trolls. I'd be willing to guess Limbaugh tops all three and they were most likely lucky to get 2 callers on the show at all. Two out of 15 is pretty good with a show of his audiance size.

The other issue is that it doesn't list HOW they tried to get on. Was it 'I'm a liberal and I'd like to talk to Rush' or was it 'I'm a liberal I'd like to talk to Rush, and something germane to the topic of conversation.'

The more I think of it, the stupider this becomes. I didn't catch the 15 bit right away, but 15 calls makes a survey? They warn its not scientific, but come on? WHEN did they make the calls.

This isn't a study, its barely a survey. Show me 100 calls durring a call in segment and it might mean something.

I've seen high school science projects with better methods.

samcol · 09-26-2006, 03:58 AM

The only place I hear real debate is on shortwave radio and some of the smaller radio networks. If it's clear channel you can definetly count on not hearing any real coherent opposition. Although, Coast to Coast am does have some real debate once in awhile about politics.

highthief · 09-26-2006, 04:15 AM

In our local market, I would have to say that the more "right wing" hosts tend to cut people off more, and not let people finish as much as some of the more "neutral" hosts. I can only think of one "left wing" host - he tends to let people talk until they get into conspiracy theory territory, as which point he cuts them off.

JustJess · 09-26-2006, 04:30 AM

I *gasp* have to agree witih Ustwo. This isn't a big enough sample to even draw preliminary conclusions from. Plus, you HAVE to consider the size of the shows you're dealing with - everyone knows Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, they're in the news constantly. Does everyone know Randi Rhodes or Ed Schultz? I doubt it. Right now, the more conservative talk shows are much better known to the audiences. The survey is skewed before it even gets out of the gate. They need to adjust their number of calls to the audience size and THEN put it on the bell curve.

ratbastid · 09-26-2006, 05:28 AM

The problem with creating a statistically significant sample is that the show can't know you're gaming them, or it skews everything. I think the only approach that would make sense would be to listen to the show a lot and figure the percentage of callers who disagree with the host, although then you can't know whether you're measuring host authoritarianism or audience demographic.

It's interesting though, even though it's far from scientific. It's been demonstrated before that liberals and conservatives consume media in very different ways. Liberals tend to want all the information, while conservatives tend to only watch or listen to things they already agree with. I can't remember where I read that, but there was a big study done that showed that. That's why Fox News is so popular with conservatives and everything that's not Fox News is accused of being the "liberal media".

dc_dux · 09-26-2006, 05:37 AM

I said right up front that the survey had no validity. I was more interested in using it to stimulate a discussion of personal experiences with talk rado.

But I would agree with rat's general observation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

It's interesting though, even though it's far from scientific. It's been demonstrated before that liberals and conservatives consume media in very different ways. Liberals tend to want all the information, while conservatives tend to only watch or listen to things they already agree with. I can't remember where I read that, but there was a big study done that showed that. That's why Fox News is so popular with conservatives and everything that's not Fox News is accused of being the "liberal media".

In my short time here, I would draw the same general conclusion on how members of the TFP community "discuss" an issue.

ShaniFaye · 09-26-2006, 05:49 AM

thats interesting...I think Im considered a conservative...though Im not sure...I cant stand fox news and only watch it if Im forced to because its on somewhere we might go to eat.

I never heard of this Ed or Randi person....cant stand Limbaugh...Hannity's voice gets on my nerves....I like Boortz

dc_dux · 09-26-2006, 05:56 AM

There are still moderators here, but we do have jobs. There's ALSO a report post button.

Ustwo · 09-26-2006, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

It's interesting though, even though it's far from scientific. It's been demonstrated before that liberals and conservatives consume media in very different ways. Liberals tend to want all the information, while conservatives tend to only watch or listen to things they already agree with. I can't remember where I read that, but there was a big study done that showed that. That's why Fox News is so popular with conservatives and everything that's not Fox News is accused of being the "liberal media".

Yea thats it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I apologize for stooping to the UStwo level. I shouldnt generalize about ALL conservatives here.

Back when we had moderators such a comment would have been removed.

dc_dux · 09-26-2006, 06:12 AM

The mods can remove my observation/opinion if it violated TFP policy and I will stand properly admonished.

As to your pie chart. it proves nothing.

I would identify myself as leaning liberal in my personal beliefs. I work for a non-partisan political advocacy organization where policy is set by a board of directors, the chairman of which this year is an active conservative republican (our exec director is a liberal and our chief lobbyist is a former Gingrich staff person). I follow the board policies in my work, whether I agree with them or not.

Most professionals, including journalists, can separate personal beliefs from professional responsibilties.

ratbastid · 09-26-2006, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

That was ten years ago, bubba. There's been a MASSIVE swing toward the right since then.

Ustwo · 09-26-2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The mods can remove my observation/opinion if it violated TFP policy and I will stand properly admonished.

As to your pie chart. it proves nothing.

I would identify myself as leaning liberal in my personal beliefs. I work for a non-partisan political advocacy organization where policy is set by a board of directors, the chairman of which this year is an active conservative republican (our exec director is a liberal and our chief lobbyist is a former Gingrich staff person). I follow the board policies in my work, whether I agree with them or not.

Most professionals, including journalists, can separate personal beliefs from professional responsibilties.

What mods? I think moderation gave up with the 9/11 conspiracy nut thread we had in here. I only posted that because if I posted what I wanted to post about you and your personal attack I should have been modded myself.

I really don't care who you work for or how you think it works, it proves nothing. Aruging if there is a liberal bias in the press is arguing if the sky is blue or not. Its journalism, you don't take a vow of neutrality, and I'll be willing to bet if you ask the average journalist they will tell you they went into it to 'make a difference' 'make the world a better place' blah blah, not 'I want to report the facts and let you decide'.

dc_dux · 09-26-2006, 06:50 AM

OK....your opinion is more valid than mine.

roachboy · 09-26-2006, 06:51 AM

nice to see that your claims regarding the 'liberal press" function for you without data, ustwo, and that no data can therefore falsify the claim. nice that you are able to so smoothly integrate your religious committments and your politics.

i used to listen to alot of rightradio because i thought it an interesting phenomenon--limbaugh in particular, as vile as he is, was pretty interesting as an ideological mouthpiece and his show was a nice little mirror of the construction of basic claims that underpinned conservative ideology under clinton in particular. at that point, limbaugh never had one callers who disagreed with him--i assumed this had a function, which was to reinforce the claims--that limbaugh made continually--that his positions reflected those of a wider movement and that this wider movement was somehow "america"----while i dont think any one of these claims made any difference--cumulatively, i think this was an effective strategy for framing infotainment. most of the folk i know who were at the time shooting up conservative ideology (cooking it in a spoon, tying off their arm etc) tended to do so (that is to listen) in large consistent doses--limbaugh was wallpaper, liddy was wallpaper--6 hours a day every day.

as much as i detest limbaugh, i had to hand it to him--censoring opposition explicitly woudl never have worked so effectively--having people who views oppose him would not have worked as effectively--setting up a radio hall of mirrors worked.

but this was only really interesting to me while the extreme right was in opposition. i dont see how that approach could continue to operate in bushworld, and i lost interest in any event.

i think far right talk radio was an interesting phenomenon in general---it seemed to respond to a desire for the illusion of community---illusion in the sense of a radio community, a one-way street of communication that was confused with a dialogue. i think the right greatly benefitted from the illusion of unanimity it created---until bush got into power and the reality implied by the policies limbaugh et al endorsed became clear.

ubertuber · 09-26-2006, 07:46 AM

Let's try to see if there's anything worth salvaging in this thread. Please.

________________________________________________________

(dang auto-merge)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Liberals tend to want all the information, while conservatives tend to only watch or listen to things they already agree with. I can't remember where I read that, but there was a big study done that showed that. That's why Fox News is so popular with conservatives and everything that's not Fox News is accused of being the "liberal media".

My personal (not moderator) opinion is that this is a highly self-serving generalization. I've seen the same blinder effect among more young liberals than I care to recall, so I doubt it is confined to one ideology. It was part of the source of the utter shock at the results of the 2004 election - they'd never considered the possibility that Bush could have won because they never listened to any one that didn't already agree with them. Perhaps if there was more than the one major outlet that conservatives identified with there would be an openness to multiple sources. In other words, maybe there is a structural identification with one source over others that would be overcome if normal practice was to channel hop.

On the other hand, I do remember the days in which G. Gordon Liddy had a radio show. Whatever your opinion of him is, he was an extremely smart guy, and he read and digested everything. That was part of what made him so insufferable when people disagreed with him. I haven't heard an approach like his in a long time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its journalism, you don't take a vow of neutrality, and I'll be willing to bet if you ask the average journalist they will tell you they went into it to 'make a difference' 'make the world a better place' blah blah, not 'I want to report the facts and let you decide'.

It also wouldn't be surprising if you consider where these folks (jounalists) are coming from. Columbia, Harvard, etc. schools of journalism: consider the campus dynamic and the atmosphere among the faculty. IF there WAS a bias among the graduates, it wouldn't be the most shocking thing and it would take a long time to dissipate because part of it is systemic. Then consider that the talk radio types aren't coming from these sorts of academic backgrounds.

ratbastid · 09-26-2006, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

My personal (not moderator) opinion is that this is a highly self-serving generalization.

Perhaps so, but it wasn't my generalization. It was the result of a study. I'll go see if I can hunt down a source.

Seaver · 09-26-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

It's interesting though, even though it's far from scientific. It's been demonstrated before that liberals and conservatives consume media in very different ways. Liberals tend to want all the information, while conservatives tend to only watch or listen to things they already agree with. I can't remember where I read that, but there was a big study done that showed that. That's why Fox News is so popular with conservatives and everything that's not Fox News is accused of being the "liberal media".

Tuber was right, the reason it was such a shock to liberals in 2004 was because they only listened to like-minded people. The whole "a monkey could defeat Bush" mentality was only possible by self-blinding to the realities of politics and dissenting viewpoints.

Quote:

Perhaps so, but it wasn't my generalization. It was the result of a study. I'll go see if I can hunt down a source.

I seriously doubt this was an actual study that conservatives only want to listen to conservative news while liberals want to hear everything. I bet it was from the same people who brought you the "study" that everyone who voted for Bush was uneducated and lived in a trailer.

ubertuber · 09-26-2006, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I bet it was from the same people who brought you the "study" that everyone who voted for Bush was uneducated and lived in a trailer.

That's a lot farther than I will go. I believe I've heard such a study mentioned before. I'd be curious to see it.

ShaniFaye · 09-26-2006, 08:35 AM

where DO they find the people for these "studies" and polls for that matter....I have never been asked my opinion on anything, heck I dont even get campaign calls at home and I've been a registered voter (and voted) since 1986

roachboy · 09-26-2006, 08:39 AM

1. as someone who has spent WAY too much time at ivy league schools, let me disabuse you of any illusion that the students in these schools are particularly radical politically. they aren't.
the assumption that they are seems nothing more than a function of the extreme right's penchant for presenting itself as the populist victims of some elist "conspiracy"--which is just another variant of the populist right's obsession with its own victimization.

2. there is a anecdote floating about beneath ratbastids claim concerning 'liberal" vs rightwingers and the types of information preferred--i dont remember where i saw this--but in the context of the selection of talkingheads for television opinion management segments, conservatives tend to be significantly over-represented--but this because they have managed a tactical victory over their opponents and recognized the importance of reducing complex matters to sound bytes---"liberals" tend to try to explain their positions--conservatives tend to simply state them--so conservatives tend to be preferred for television opinion-management shows simply because their preferred mode of presentation fits better with the short-attention span, cut to commercial format of television infotainment.

on this, you have to hand it to the right--they understood the television opinion management game better than others did.

anyway, that is the specific story that i remember, and was reminded of by ratbastid's post above.

i haven't seen anything in the way of broader surveys that reproduce this kind of result. but then again, i haven't looked. maybe i will now.

3. seaver:

the tendency to stream information cuts in all directions. your claim concerning "liberals" is simply a reversal of what could be said about conservatives. it gets nowhere because it is simply projection.

had you routed this through the ostensible topic of the thread--right talk radio--there woudl be an interesting conversation to be had because the GENERATING (not reflecting) of the illusion of unanimity of opinion seems to be a significant therpeutic function of such radio programming.

that said, i do not listen to air america so for all i know they do the same kind of thing.

but outside specific contexts, your remark about "liberals" means almost nothing. loop it through contexts so we can get somewhere please.

host · 09-26-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea thats it.

Back when we had moderators such a comment would have been removed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

What mods? I think moderation gave up with the 9/11 conspiracy nut thread we had in here. I only posted that because if I posted what I wanted to post about you and your personal attack I should have been modded myself.

I really don't care who you work for or how you think it works, it proves nothing. Aruging if there is a liberal bias in the press is arguing if the sky is blue or not. Its journalism, you don't take a vow of neutrality, and I'll be willing to bet if you ask the average journalist they will tell you they went into it to 'make a difference' 'make the world a better place' blah blah, not 'I want to report the facts and let you decide'.

In response to your recently posted comments about "moderation", IMO, you certainly didn't demonstrate the same restraint, as observed: <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2104864&postcount=4">here</a>

There is no "liberal media bias". L. Brent Bozell III's reptition of that tired "liberal bias" mantra, for the last 19 years, does not make it so:

Quote:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2534

.....If the authors truly wanted to rank media outlets on the ADA scale, the simpler method would be to look at the ADA ratings of congressmembers quoted by those news outlets. One suspects that the authors avoided this obvious approach because the results would have been less to their liking: Studies in Extra! have repeatedly found various media outlets quote Republicans more often than Democrats, by ratios ranging from 3 to 2 on NPR (5–6/04) to 3 to 1 on nightly network news (5–6/02) to a startling 5 to 1 on Fox News’ Special Report (7–8/04). Fox News, according to Groseclose and Milyo’s method, is a “centrist” news outlet.
<img src="http://www.fair.org/images/table2534b.jpg">

Quote:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1109
Extra! May/June 2002

Power Sources
On party, gender, race and class, TV news looks to the most powerful groups

By Ina Howard

On an average weeknight, ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News are tuned in by approximately one-quarter of television-viewing homes in the U.S. (Nielsen Media Research, 2001)-- about two-thirds of the U.S. public that claims to follow current events regularly (Pew Research Center, 2000). In 22 minutes the newscasts deliver snapshots of national and international news that not only frame current events for the public, but influence story selection at local affiliate stations, at radio outlets and in print media. In addition to putting topics on the nation’s agenda, the networks help set the range of debate on those issues by selecting sources who ostensibly represent the interests and opinions of the population.

In this role as agenda setters and debate arbiters, the networks’ broadcasts profoundly affect the democratic process. While conservatives from Spiro Agnew to Bernard Goldberg have accused the news media of using this influence to promote liberal ideals, a comprehensive analysis of the sources used on the big three networks’ evening news shows in 2001 suggests otherwise.

Instead of a liberal bias, the study found, source selection favored the elite interests that the corporate owners of these shows depend on for advertising revenue, regulatory support and access to information. Network news demonstrated a clear tendency to showcase the opinions of the most powerful political and economic actors, while giving limited access to those voices that would be most likely to challenge them.

On the partisan level, the news programs provided a generous platform for sources from the Republican Party-- the party in power in the White House for almost the entire year-- while giving much less access to the opposition Democrats, and virtually no time to third party or independent politicians. Based on the criterion of who got to speak, the broadcast networks functioned much more as venues for the claims and opinions of the powerful than as democratic forums for public discussion or education.

Partisan imbalance

This study was based on data compiled by Media Tenor Ltd., a non-partisan, German-based media analysis firm with an office in New York City. During 2001, for each report on ABC World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News, Media Tenor researchers coded the topic, time period, location, protagonists and detailed source information (including partisan affiliation, gender, and race or nationality, when determinable). If special programming pre-empted the news shows’ broadcast in New York City, transcripts were analyzed when available. For this study, data was analyzed for the time period between January 1 and December 31, 2001, which included 14,632 sources in 18,765 individual reports.

In 2001, the voices of Washington’s elite politicians were the dominant sources of opinion on the network evening news, making up one in three Americans (and more than one in four of all sources) who were quoted on all topics throughout the year. Of sources who had an identifiable partisan affiliation, 75 percent were Republican and only 24 percent Democrats. A mere 1 percent were third-party representatives or independents.

The three networks varied only slightly in their selection of partisan sources. CBS had the most Republicans and the fewest Democrats (76 percent vs. 23 percent); NBC (75 percent vs. 25 percent) and ABC (73 percent vs. 27 percent) were marginally less imbalanced. CBS had the most independents (1.2 percent), followed by ABC (0.7 percent) and NBC (an almost invisible 0.2 percent).

Small as they are, these latter figures may overstate the presence of independent politicians on the nightly news. Sen. James Jeffords, the centrist Vermont Republican who broke with his party in May (giving Democrats control of the Senate), made up 83 percent of the independent sources who were quoted throughout the year, suggesting that networks highlighted independent politicians mainly when they impacted the fates of the two major parties. The only avowedly anti-establishment independent who appeared in 2001, Ralph Nader, made up 3 percent of independent or third-party sources-- 0.03 percent of all politicians quoted.

Although the attacks of September 11 exacerbated the tilt toward Republicans, the difference was pronounced beforehand as well. Prior to the attacks Republicans made up 68 percent, Democrats 31 percent and independents 1 percent of partisan sources. Afterward, Republican sources surged to 87 percent, with Democrats (13 percent) and independents (0.1 percent) falling even further behind.......

Ustwo · 09-26-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

[
It also wouldn't be surprising if you consider where these folks (jounalists) are coming from. Columbia, Harvard, etc. schools of journalism: consider the campus dynamic and the atmosphere among the faculty. IF there WAS a bias among the graduates, it wouldn't be the most shocking thing and it would take a long time to dissipate because part of it is systemic. Then consider that the talk radio types aren't coming from these sorts of academic backgrounds.

As I've stated time and time again.

The talking heads are not a problem. I know Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, I know Al Franklin (or is it Franken) is a liberal. I know what their spin is.

The problem is when unknown, writes and unknown story, with an unknown bias. After 2000 when the mainstream was really alterted to this kind of thing the excuse by news execs was that well it exsisted but it was unconcious. I think a lot of it isn't intented but if you have a world view you will spin that world view because you think its 'right'. Some of it is most definately intended with someone like CBS's Dan Rather taking the prize.

Ch'i · 09-26-2006, 10:23 AM

It would vaguely make sense for radio hosts to only let people who share their views on the air; I'd think it would make more sense to have the opposition on so they could debate, and prove their points rather than having numerous people vindicate the hosts political beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward R. Murrow

Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn’t mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.

Quoted for truth.

Elphaba · 09-26-2006, 01:49 PM

As a personal observation only, I agree with the standing of the progressive radio show hosts. They may be unfamiliar to many here because progressive radio hasn't been around for long and their audience numbers may be a reflection of that. (These people are all well known on the speaking circuit.)

Schultz does an excellent job imo of keeping the show open to opposing viewpoints and he often has conservative guest speakers. For that reason I prefer his program over any others.

Miller is an absolute kick to listen to (think Molly Ivans) but she is less open to dissenting opinion.

I have only listened to Rhodes a few times so I can't speak to how open she is to opposing viewpoints. I just find her too obnoxious to listen to.

Roachboy, thank you for the interesting observation of Limbaugh creating an appearance of overall agreement to his stances. I do recall his audience was called "ditto heads" and they seemed pleased by it. It seems somewhat similar to Reagan's invention of the "moral majority." Why would someone wish to identify themselves as the "immoral minority?"

roachboy · 09-26-2006, 02:16 PM

Quote:

The problem is when unknown, writes and unknown story, with an unknown bias. After 2000 when the mainstream was really alterted to this kind of thing the excuse by news execs was that well it exsisted but it was unconcious

jesus.

1. you are confusing the structural problem of major media, with its reliance on wire service stories that get picked up and echoed without change from paper to paper, with questions concerning political stance.

the mass media as echo chamber is an obvious effect of the concentration of ownership of media outlets and the strategies of consolidation this concentration entailed---you know, the "new and improved" management ideologies of vertical integration, the treatment of information as a commodity like any other (like hamburgers, like little plastic elvises full of tapwater from graceland, destined to become one of your most treasured possessions)-----this is a structural feature of how mass media in the united states is now organized, and the problems it creates cut across ideological divisions---if you are a free marketeer, you have nothing to say about this effect of the rational unfolding of capitalist markets. if you are a tv news executive, of course you have nothing to say about it either--whence the "unconscious" remark---by the way, is that anything like an accurate quote? it seems unusually stupid...

2. i do not see your point concerning "unknown unknowns" writing "unknown known" stories. would you prefer total stasis in the production of information? the same old farts writing the same stuff over and over until they keel over, just so the informational universe you inhabit comes without interpretive problems? INFORMATON REQUIRES CRITICAL READING even if you know the old fart producing it. even when walter cronkite was on the air and people trusted him as if he wrote the stories he read (alert ustwo: news anchors are talking heads--they do not write their own copy--think ted baxter) you still had to think critically about the infotaiment you were being handed---that cronkite's paterfamilias demeanor was reassuring means nothing in this regard.

the only problem with having to read critically is that it inconveniences the lazy.

3. in order to plow the fields later planted with rightwing propaganda, it has been convenient for conservatives to latch onto anything and everything they can that encourages a kind of facile cynicism about the mainstream media. teh word facile is important in this regard because were it other than facile, you would not be persuaded of some hallucinatory "liberal bias" in the mainstrean press. the only reason such a claim is compelling is because it is easy--it is handed to you by right pundits--it is never explained, the claim never holds up to systematic scrutiny--luckily for the right, they have the good mr. baltzell to reinforce the empty claim of "liberal biais"--host has been posting alot about this particular rightwing toady of late----but i would be really surprised if you read any of it ustwo, protective of your scrolling finger as you appear to be when it comes to anything host posts.

elphaba: thanks. i think this appearance of unanimity was a major sellingpoint for the dittoheads during the clinton period. right radio lost much of its purchase once the right was no longer in opposition, and the power of these claims dissolved along with it. i would expect to hear new versions of it once the right is in opposition again, which it will be, and that not a day too soon.

_God_ · 10-01-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

As I've stated time and time again.

The talking heads are not a problem. I know Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, I know Al Franklin (or is it Franken) is a liberal. I know what their spin is.

The problem is when unknown, writes and unknown story, with an unknown bias. After 2000 when the mainstream was really alterted to this kind of thing the excuse by news execs was that well it exsisted but it was unconcious. I think a lot of it isn't intented but if you have a world view you will spin that world view because you think its 'right'. Some of it is most definately intended with someone like CBS's Dan Rather taking the prize.

Very true. Clicking on host's link to an article at fair.org did not lead to an article anywhere that implied the current administration, or Republicans in general, have ever done anything right, I mean correctly.

With a name like fair.org, the average person would expect impartiality. However, one of the first available sections states that its editor, Jim Naureckas, is the author of "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." Another sample of his slant: "Former prisoners of Guantánamo have long complained that guards and interrogators mistreated their Qurans."

The article host references was written by Michael Dolney, who was recently an organizer for the Kucinich for President campaign.

In Congress, Kucinich has authored and co-sponsored legislation to create a national health care system, preserve Social Security, lower the costs of prescription drugs, provide economic development through infrastructure improvements, abolish the death penalty, provide universal prekindergarten to all 3, 4, and 5 year olds, create a Department of Peace, regulate genetically engineered foods, repeal the USA PATRIOT Act, and provide tax relief to working class families.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Presumably, if you oppose indoctrination of three-year-olds, government wealth redistribution, or think the working class should pay taxes, Dolney would consider you a right-wing fanatic. I'm forced to bear this in mind while awaiting the link that ratbastid promised us.

host · 10-01-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _God_

Very true. Clicking on host's link to an article at fair.org did not lead to an article anywhere that implied the current administration, or Republicans in general, have ever done anything right, I mean correctly.

With a name like fair.org, the average person would expect impartiality. However, one of the first available sections states that its editor, Jim Naureckas, is the author of "The Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." Another sample of his slant: "Former prisoners of Guantánamo have long complained that guards and interrogators mistreated their Qurans."

The article host references was written by Michael Dolney, who was recently an organizer for the Kucinich for President campaign......

......Presumably, if you oppose indoctrination of three-year-olds, government wealth redistribution, or think the working class should pay taxes, Dolney would consider you a right-wing fanatic. I'm forced to bear this in mind while awaiting the link that ratbastid promised us.

On fair.org, just to the right of the large "FAIR" logo is this link:
<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=100">About Us</a>

Quote:

<center>What's FAIR?</center>
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986..........

.........As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information......

........For an in-depth explanation of FAIR's critique of the mainstream media, you should start with our overview, <a href="index.php?page=101">What's Wrong with the News?</a> You might also check out the article <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1571">What's FAIR?</a>, by FAIR founder <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=10&author_id=84">Jeff Cohen</a>. And see what <a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=138">journalists, activists and scholars</a> have to say about FAIR.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1571">What's FAIR?</a>
Extra! June 1987

What's FAIR?

By Jeff Cohen

FAIR is a media watch organization offering constructive criticism in an effort to correct media imbalance. We advocate for media access on behalf of those constituencies in our society that do not have the wealth to purchase their own TV stations or daily newspapers. We scrutinize media practices that slight public interest, peace and minority viewpoints.

All of us who founded FAIR have media backgrounds. Our sympathies are with the working press. We do not view reporters, editors and producers as our enemy. Nor do we hunt for conspiracies. The villain we see is not a person or group, but a historical trend: the increasing concentration of the U.S. media in fewer and fewer corporate hands.

FAIR was launched in mid-1986 at a time when the major media were bending distinctly rightward. Big media businesses were being absorbed by even bigger ones, with dangerous implications for those viewpoints already underrepresented. Well-financed right-wing groups like the misnamed Accuracy In Media (AIM) were harassing journalists who uncovered unpleasant truths about poverty, inequality, government corruption or U.S. military and nuclear policy.

FAIR came into being to offer a different kind of media criticism -- fully in keeping with the First Amendment. We do not work to prevent the airing of viewpoints with which we disagree. Our approach is to work for the inclusion of new viewpoints, not the exclusion of old ones. We seek to invigorate free speech by striving for a more pluralistic media.....

.....so, with just a few clicks to the "usual place" to find out more about any website, the preceding info was revealed, mystery solved.....

I am including the following "model" of what could be happening on this forum, if I didn't find myself so often "engaged" in a discussion that is missing a substantative response, such as the ones posted in the middle and the bottom of the following three quote boxes:

Quote:

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/...ia.html#006028

The Horse's Mouth
A blog about the reporting of politics -- and the politics of reporting. By Greg Sargent

« | Main | »

THE STATE OF PROGRESSIVE MEDIA CRITICISM. Thanks to Greg for the warm welcome. I'm hoping we'll have an enjoyable couple of months together.

I thought I would get things rolling by taking a look at the state of progressive media criticism today. As Greg mentioned, I used to co-edit Spinsanity, a non-partisan watchdog of political spin, but I believe that ideological media critics can also contribute a lot to the dialogue under certain conditions.

In particular, I want to use the pathologies of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), which is about to celebrate its 20th anniversary, to illustrate some of the problems with the worst media criticism on the left and right:

1. Failure to take advantage of the Internet: Like Columbia Journalism Review, which just made the ill-advised decision to cut back its CJR Daily blog, FAIR is trapped in a legacy business model in which it has to reserve much of its best content for a slow-moving print publication that provides subscription revenue. This props up the organization at the expense of having any impact on the larger discourse.

2. A misguided focus on "balance": FAIR devotes a great deal of effort to complaining about ideological imbalance in think tank citations and talk show guests. The problem is these studies rarely have any impact. Meanwhile, FAIR devotes little attention to rebutting misinformation that's being pushed through the press -- an area where it is possible to have an immediate impact.

FAIR is still fighting the last war. In the late 1980s, when the group was founded, perhaps it made sense to focus on counter-balancing the conservative skew of talk shows like "The McLaughlin Group." But today, the Bush administration consciously takes advantage of the journalistic norm of "balance," peddling misinformation to the public via the "he said," "she said" format of many contemporary news reports. (See All the President's Spin for much more on this.)

3. Ideological ax-grinding and irrelevance: FAIR's analyses often exaggerate ambiguous evidence and criticize publications for failing to share the organization's leftist political views. My Spinsanity co-editor Ben Fritz showed, for instance, how FAIR twisted and exaggerated ambiguous evidence to attack newspaper editorials that were not sufficiently unfavorable toward an attempted coup against Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. (Indeed, FAIR's leftist predilections seem to result in a preference for obscure topics with little relevance to mainstream discourse. Hugo Chavez appears on FAIR's website almost as much as Ann Coulter. Meanwhile, Noam Chomsky appears more than Coulter.)

A better approach to ideological media criticism is suggested by Media Matters, which has quickly replaced FAIR as the most prominent and influential liberal media watchdog. The reasons it has succeeded mirror the reasons for FAIR's failure. First, Media Matters uses the Internet effectively, posting analyses quickly and providing documentation for all its claims. It also focuses more on correcting misinformation than complaining about "balance," which results in frequent corrections and public shaming of inaccurate journalists. And finally, the organization writes in a relatively neutral tone about topics that are relevant to mainstream political debate, making it accessible and appealing to both journalists and the public.

This is not to say that Media Matters is perfect (for instance, I've criticized them here, here, here, and here). Nonetheless, they are vastly more useful than FAIR because they write articles that are often convincing to non-liberals and publish them quickly on the Internet.

Indeed, I think we need a conservative counterpart to Media Matters to keep liberals honest. Media Research Center, the most prominent conservative media critic, is unfortunately much more like FAIR than Media Matters, as we argued at Spinsanity -- it complains about balance and perspectives it doesn't like, and its analysis is frequently untrustworthy.

So let me end with a question for readers. Media criticism is much more open to new voices since the advent of blogs. So which liberal bloggers besides Greg are doing the kind of media criticism that I advocate? Bob Somerby? Eric Boehlert? And what about conservatives?

--Brendan Nyhan (bnyhan@yahoo.com)

Quote:

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/.../post_323.html
The Horse's Mouth
A blog about the reporting of politics -- and the politics of reporting. By Greg Sargent

« | Main | »

FAIR RESPONDS. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has responded to my post criticizing them:

FAIR's Response to Brendan Nyhan:

It's important for media critics-or anyone else-to know the subject they're writing about. But Brendan Nyhan's recent post describing FAIR's "pathologies" demonstrated clearly that he doesn't know much about what we do-aside from knowing that he dislikes our politics.

The first of FAIR's pathologies is our "failure to take advantage of the Internet." Nyhan's evidence: We have a print publication that "props up the organization at the expense of having any impact on the larger discourse." This is an odd point to make on the website of a print magazine; it will certainly seem puzzling to the people who paid more than 3 million visits to our website last year, and to the 45,000 members of FAIR's email list, who regularly receive timely analysis of ongoing media coverage from FAIR, and write letters to protest shoddy media treatment of important issues.

The letters generated by such activism are heard loud and clear by media outlets-which have reacted over the years, sometimes with anger, but also with corrections, retractions, and changes in content or approach. As the editor of CBS's Public Eye website noted recently (8/25/06), "When the liberal media watchdog group issues an 'action alert,' their community takes action." We've heard the same from mainstream media outlets for years. They don't always agree with our conclusions, but the charge that we don't take advantage of the Internet suggests a critic who just hasn't been paying attention.

As for our "impact on the larger discourse," Nyhan might consider the fact that dozens of media outlets, mainstream and independent, call FAIR every month for commentary and analysis of major events. And the fact that FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin airs weekly on more than 130 stations in the U.S. and Canada.

Nyhan also chides FAIR for "complaining about ideological imbalance in think tank citations and talkshow guests," while giving "little attention to rebutting misinformation that's being pushed through the press." Actually, FAIR publishes exactly one article a year about think tank citations; it's one of our more popular online features. And we do think it's vital to monitor who is and isn't invited to speak in the media-these studies have led to a number of progressive advocates getting on mainstream TV and radio who otherwise would not have. Incidentally, studying sources is one of the few ways to actually demonstrate, as opposed to complaining about, false balance-a problem FAIR has been talking about since the 1980s.

Nonetheless, neither subject takes up as much of FAIR's energy as the thing Nyhan claims we don't do enough of-namely, rebutting misinformation. A casual reader of FAIR's website or magazine would see that this is the vast majority of what we do. Two of FAIR's most popular recent such reports-a compilation of wrong-headed predictions and congratulations about the Iraq War from 2003 (3/15/06), and an analysis of New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's ever-flexible predictions about on the same (5/16/06) -were widely picked up by print, broadcast and online outlets across the political spectrum.

Nyhan also charges us with issuing shoddy, ideologically driven criticism. Readers should take a look at the single example he cites, taken from the defunct Spinsanity website (7/1/02); it criticizes FAIR for taking major papers like the Chicago Tribune to task for backing the 2003 military coup against elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Spinsanity's problem-as best as we can fathom-is that when the Tribune applauded the coup, it also wrote other unflattering things about Chavez that we did not cite. Honestly, if we put out criticism that was this incoherent and, yes, ideologically driven, we would be out of work.

It's worth mentioning that FAIR got the Tribune (4/20/02) to correct a gross error in one of its Chavez editorials (claiming he had praised Osama bin Laden), which makes this a dubious choice for the sole example of how our "ax-grinding" results in our "irrelevance."

But for Nyhan, writing about Chavez just shows our obsession with "obscure topics with little relevance to mainstream discourse"-a problem that he demonstrates with a search of our website that turned up more hits for Noam Chomsky than Ann Coulter, implying that we think Coulter less deserving of attention. This is correct; we do believe that a media critic and scholar widely considered to be one of the world's leading intellectuals is more important than the calculated rantings of a hate-mongering TV pundit. That said, we have repeatedly exposed Coulter's inaccuracies (the issue Nyhan claims we neglect)-and confronted Coulter with them in an interview we conducted with her on CounterSpin (8/9/02).

Nyhan equates FAIR with the right-wing Media Research Center, asserting that like the MRC, our "analysis is frequently untrustworthy." Given the flimsiness of his critique of FAIR's work, this comes across as a bow to the journalistic convention that criticism should be politically symmetrical. If Nyhan is truly interested in combating the evil of "false balance," he should point out his own blog entry as a textbook example.

Nyhan is, of course, welcome to believe that Media Matters is more valuable than FAIR. We think Media Matters does important work. But it's clear that what Nyhan really objects to is FAIR's politics-or "leftist predilections," as he puts it. There's an irony here: The critic who prides himself on his "non-partisan" work is patroling the ideological boundaries to make sure that no one travels too far from "mainstream discourse." Dressing this kind of centrist orthodoxy as serious analysis is precisely what Spinsanity used to specialize in. We invite readers unfamiliar with our material to check us out at www.fair.org and judge us on the actual quality of our work.

Let's review the evidence. The first charge I made was that FAIR failed to use the Internet effectively. Its response is to cite "more than 3 million visits" to the FAIR website and "the 45,000 members of FAIR's email list, who regularly receive timely analysis of ongoing media coverage from FAIR, and write letters to protest shoddy media treatment of important issues." FAIR further claims that "The letters generated by such activism are heard loud and clear by media outlets."

I'm not claiming that FAIR does not have a large audience. But despite its claims, the organization has failed to fully capitalize on the potential of the Internet or have a significant impact on the larger discourse. Compare how much more effective Media Matters has been in the short time since it was founded. Data from Alexa.com (here), Google (here and here), and Technorati (here and here) all indicate that Media Matters has higher traffic, more links, and more influence in the blogosphere. Its online analyses are more comprehensive, more timely, and more transparent (often including transcripts and video). And while FAIR action alerts do generate responses from the press, Nexis searches indicate that Media Matters has been cited much more frequently in major newspapers over the past year.

My second claim was that FAIR focuses too much on "balance" and too little on fighting misinformation. In response, it claims that "[rebutting misinformation] is the vast majority of what we do," pointing to two recent reports, "a compilation of wrong-headed predictions and congratulations about the Iraq War from 2003 (3/15/06), and an analysis of New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's ever-flexible predictions about on the same (5/16/06)." This response also perfectly highlights my third point -- the way that FAIR's ideology gets in the way of useful media criticism. The March 2006 article lists a series of predictions that turned out to be false, while the one from May highlights a columnist's shifting deadline for progress in Iraq -- neither of which has anything to do with correcting misleading claims. Predictions (by definition) cannot be wrong at the time they are made, nor is there any objective standard by which we can judge an appropriate timeline for Iraq. FAIR's objection in both cases is largely ideological.

Finally, I respectfully submit that FAIR's claims that I espouse a "centrist orthodoxy" and that I "really object" to their politics are wrong. The standard I use is simple. An effective media watchdog should quickly and accurately document misleading claims and inflammatory rhetoric in the national debate using what the political philosopher John Rawls called "public reason," which is based on values on which reasonable people of different backgrounds, ideology, etc. can agree. The consistent failure by FAIR and Media Research Center to meet this standard represents a loss to the country. And I say the same thing when the non-partisan Factcheck.org occasionally fails to do so (see here and here). At Spinsanity, we also tried to meet this difficult standard. Readers can peruse our archives and decide for themselves whether we were successful.

Update: MRC staffer Tim Graham has also responded to this post on the organization's Newsbusters blog. He makes several points I agree with. In particular, Graham is right that part of the reason for Media Matters' success is that has more money and better Democratic connections than FAIR, and he is also correct that some MM items simply complain about reporters failing to challenge conservative rhetoric that is not factually inaccurate. (I'll leave aside the details of his objections to the 2002 Spinsanity column I linked to in my original post.)

--Brendan Nyhan (bnyhan@yahoo.com)

Quote:

http://newsbusters.org/node/7358
Liberal Critics Claim MRC's A 'Failure,' Obsession With Balance Isn't 'Useful'
Posted by Tim Graham on September 3, 2006 - 06:42.

For his debut on The American Prospect’s "Horse’s Mouth" blog on political reportage, Brendan Nyhan accurately explained the new frontier of "progressive" media criticism: that the Clintonistas at Media Matters for America have surpassed the Noam Chomskyites at Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR).

There’s two easy reasons he doesn’t cite: MMFA is the liberal Democrat establishment, while FAIR is ultra-left. Or put it this way: MMFA is in the tank for Hillary, while FAIR favors her hard-left primary challenger, Jonathan Tasini. Two, MMFA has to have a lot more cash. Nyhan is right that MMFA’s online methods are more up to date, but I’m not so sure about "they are vastly more useful than FAIR because they write articles that are often convincing to non-liberals." I’m non-liberal, and I almost never find them convincing. I don’t really take issue, though, until Nyhan suggests the MRC is an untrustworthy pile of hacks:
FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986.
"Indeed, I think we need a conservative counterpart to Media Matters to keep liberals honest. Media Research Center, the most prominent conservative media critic, is unfortunately much more like FAIR than Media Matters, as we argued at Spinsanity -- it complains about balance and perspectives it doesn't like, and its analysis is frequently untrustworthy."

But in the Spinsanity article he links to, his colleague Ben Fritz misleads about what MRC does, as he treats MRC and FAIR like Tweedledee and Tweedledum:

Despite their blatantly ideological agendas, both organizations claim to engage in impartial analysis. In practice, however, these groups often treat reporting that reflects the other side's perspective as de facto evidence of bias, with facts supporting their own views ignored or dismissed as an aberration. With MRC and FAIR, it seems, there's often no such thing as a balanced report.

Now who’s engaging in "spinsanity"? First, MRC does not generally claim to engage in "impartial" analysis. We’re not trying to look as absurd as the "objective" media in claiming we have no allegiance to conservatives. We do claim to document, expose, and neutralize liberal bias. That would seem to be an admission of a conservative mission. We often tell reporters it's accurate to describe us as a "conservative media watchdog" -- even if we also insist they use the liberal label at least once in a blue moon.

Second, and this is where Fritz really punches low, MRC is not in the business of objecting to a liberal getting to speak on a newscast. We do not think that when a liberal gets to open their mouth on air, liberal bias has been committed. Often, we are pointing out that the liberal attitude isn't coming from a liberal think tank spokesman or a Democratic politician -- it's coming from an "objective" journalist like Katie Couric. Fritz tried to take apart a Cyber Alert item and a Media Reality Check, but his analysis is pretty lame. (I won't trying writing a book on this today.) Fritz underlines the conservative censorship argument: "It appears that both groups' real beef is that perspectives they disagree with are aired at all."

MRC is asking the news media to balance liberal viewpoints with conservative viewpoints. We don't generally say liberals should be removed from the air. This line is especially odd from Fritz or Nyhan, considering anyone who pays attention to Media Matters knows it's an aggressive promoter of taking conservatives off the air.

Third, MRC has acknowledged that there’s such a thing as a balanced report. Rich Noyes found a pile of them in his Iraq war study, for example. It’s just that we don’t tend to emphasize them, the same way the news media don’t emphasize planes landing safely on the runway. Balanced reports ought to be the norm.

Fritz is cartooning the MRC with terms like "it seems" and "it would appear," which are merely introductions to.....liberal spin. Oh, but Fritzy wasn't done. MRC is a failure, and a cancer on the political debate:

Perhaps the worst part of all this is that the methods of these ideological media watchdogs are spreading, with more and more commentators adopting their tactics of selective quotation, and lumping together all reporting they don't like under the rubric of "media bias." This is not only lazy; it is intellectually dishonest.

One is forced to conclude that FAIR and MRC are falling well short of their self-professed goals to, respectively, "invigorate the First Amendment" and "bring balance and responsibility to the news media." The American press, so desperately in need of less ideology and more objectivity, is worse off for their failure.

Doesn't it get a bit confusing for the reader as Fritz turns himself into a pretzel, saying on the one hand that seeking "balance" isn't helpful, and then turning around and saying the media's desperately in need of more objectivity? How on earth can you expose a lack of objectivity without discussing the balance of a story or the tone of journalist rhetoric? The big failure here is Fritz's failure to make a cohesive argument.

Now, back to Nyhan's original, newer valentine to Media Matters:

It also focuses more on correcting misinformation than complaining about "balance," which results in frequent corrections and public shaming of inaccurate journalists. And finally, the organization writes in a relatively neutral tone about topics that are relevant to mainstream political debate, making it accessible and appealing to both journalists and the public.

Once again, anyone who visits Media Matters will see that its focus isn't always on "misinformation." It's often, alert Ben Fritz, mere offense at conservative speech. Take these examples from their short list of recent items:

Robertson: "Osama bin Laden may be one of the true disciples of the teaching of the Quran ... because he's following through literally word-for-word what it says"

Hannity: "[M]aking sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the [House] speaker" is "worth ... dying for"

Coulter on Sen. Chafee: "They Shot the Wrong Lincoln"

Even this one: On Fox, boxing promoter Don King defended Bush on Katrina, claimed African-Americans supported Kerry in 2004 "because they didn't know any better"

But on so many occasions lately, Media Matters is interested at how reporters aren't "challenging" enough, that they let conservative arguments go "unchallenged." I get a kick out of this one. MMFA complains that Robin Roberts didn't bat around the First Lady half enough. Roberts touted a New York Times story saying Bush will be forever smudged by Hurricane Katrina, and Mrs. Bush said "consider the source." MMFA wanted Roberts to tell Bush off. This is a typical Media Matters post. "Misinformation" is not the issue here. It's about the reporter not having enough liberal spin.

It seems to me that it is not difficult to find out the background of any author of any "story", and the background of their employer, financiers, partners, mentors, etc. To claim that it is "too difficult" to research the authors of what you encounter, and then retreat into a "parallel universe" of information streams that have been filtered and "cleared" by Murdoch's News Corp., Bozell's MRC.org entities, or other bastions of the false mantra of the existence of "Liberal Media Bias", seems to be more a symptom of intellectual "laziness", or a low level of curiousity, more than of any claim of "confusion" or of "victimization" as a result of being "misled" or "deceived".

Sun Tzu · 10-01-2006, 05:44 PM

I got through to Sean Hannity (there was a time I listened to him) and brought up what I considered great points he had no true substance to argue. He cut me off, and that was it. I cant listen to him or Limbaugh anymore without getting truly pissed. Even though I dont agree with some of his points the only one I can listen to at this point is Savage.

09-25-2006, 11:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	With a seven second delay on the radio, a talk show host should not have to screen their callers. Hopefully, all talk show formats in the future will follow the format of Ed Shultz. Even with screeners 'trolls' get through now and then and its bad radio when they have to hit the delay and wait. It happens even with sports radio, I can't imagine that for politics. If that is the conclusion of the study its not much of a study. Hannity I could see not allowing liberals on unless they are guests when I've heard his show, its really not much of a show, its more cheerleading. He also takes very few calls. Limbaugh I haven't listened to in a couple of years, but when I did he would often have Liberals on, including liberals only segments. I think one small flaw to this study is the size of the shows involved, how many callers they get, and how many trolls. I'd be willing to guess Limbaugh tops all three and they were most likely lucky to get 2 callers on the show at all. Two out of 15 is pretty good with a show of his audiance size. The other issue is that it doesn't list HOW they tried to get on. Was it 'I'm a liberal and I'd like to talk to Rush' or was it 'I'm a liberal I'd like to talk to Rush, and something germane to the topic of conversation.' The more I think of it, the stupider this becomes. I didn't catch the 15 bit right away, but 15 calls makes a survey? They warn its not scientific, but come on? WHEN did they make the calls. This isn't a study, its barely a survey. Show me 100 calls durring a call in segment and it might mean something. I've seen high school science projects with better methods. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-26-2006, 04:15 AM	#4 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	In our local market, I would have to say that the more "right wing" hosts tend to cut people off more, and not let people finish as much as some of the more "neutral" hosts. I can only think of one "left wing" host - he tends to let people talk until they get into conspiracy theory territory, as which point he cuts them off. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

09-26-2006, 04:30 AM	#5 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	I gasp have to agree witih Ustwo. This isn't a big enough sample to even draw preliminary conclusions from. Plus, you HAVE to consider the size of the shows you're dealing with - everyone knows Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, they're in the news constantly. Does everyone know Randi Rhodes or Ed Schultz? I doubt it. Right now, the more conservative talk shows are much better known to the audiences. The survey is skewed before it even gets out of the gate. They need to adjust their number of calls to the audience size and THEN put it on the bell curve. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

09-26-2006, 05:49 AM	#8 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	thats interesting...I think Im considered a conservative...though Im not sure...I cant stand fox news and only watch it if Im forced to because its on somewhere we might go to eat. I never heard of this Ed or Randi person....cant stand Limbaugh...Hannity's voice gets on my nerves....I like Boortz __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

09-26-2006, 05:56 AM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	There are still moderators here, but we do have jobs. There's ALSO a report post button. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by ubertuber; 09-26-2006 at 07:44 AM..

09-26-2006, 03:58 AM	#3 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	The only place I hear real debate is on shortwave radio and some of the smaller radio networks. If it's clear channel you can definetly count on not hearing any real coherent opposition. Although, Coast to Coast am does have some real debate once in awhile about politics.

09-26-2006, 05:28 AM	#6 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	The problem with creating a statistically significant sample is that the show can't know you're gaming them, or it skews everything. I think the only approach that would make sense would be to listen to the show a lot and figure the percentage of callers who disagree with the host, although then you can't know whether you're measuring host authoritarianism or audience demographic. It's interesting though, even though it's far from scientific. It's been demonstrated before that liberals and conservatives consume media in very different ways. Liberals tend to want all the information, while conservatives tend to only watch or listen to things they already agree with. I can't remember where I read that, but there was a big study done that showed that. That's why Fox News is so popular with conservatives and everything that's not Fox News is accused of being the "liberal media".

09-26-2006, 06:12 AM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The mods can remove my observation/opinion if it violated TFP policy and I will stand properly admonished. As to your pie chart. it proves nothing. I would identify myself as leaning liberal in my personal beliefs. I work for a non-partisan political advocacy organization where policy is set by a board of directors, the chairman of which this year is an active conservative republican (our exec director is a liberal and our chief lobbyist is a former Gingrich staff person). I follow the board policies in my work, whether I agree with them or not. Most professionals, including journalists, can separate personal beliefs from professional responsibilties. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-26-2006, 06:50 AM	#14 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	OK....your opinion is more valid than mine. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-26-2006, 06:51 AM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nice to see that your claims regarding the 'liberal press" function for you without data, ustwo, and that no data can therefore falsify the claim. nice that you are able to so smoothly integrate your religious committments and your politics. i used to listen to alot of rightradio because i thought it an interesting phenomenon--limbaugh in particular, as vile as he is, was pretty interesting as an ideological mouthpiece and his show was a nice little mirror of the construction of basic claims that underpinned conservative ideology under clinton in particular. at that point, limbaugh never had one callers who disagreed with him--i assumed this had a function, which was to reinforce the claims--that limbaugh made continually--that his positions reflected those of a wider movement and that this wider movement was somehow "america"----while i dont think any one of these claims made any difference--cumulatively, i think this was an effective strategy for framing infotainment. most of the folk i know who were at the time shooting up conservative ideology (cooking it in a spoon, tying off their arm etc) tended to do so (that is to listen) in large consistent doses--limbaugh was wallpaper, liddy was wallpaper--6 hours a day every day. as much as i detest limbaugh, i had to hand it to him--censoring opposition explicitly woudl never have worked so effectively--having people who views oppose him would not have worked as effectively--setting up a radio hall of mirrors worked. but this was only really interesting to me while the extreme right was in opposition. i dont see how that approach could continue to operate in bushworld, and i lost interest in any event. i think far right talk radio was an interesting phenomenon in general---it seemed to respond to a desire for the illusion of community---illusion in the sense of a radio community, a one-way street of communication that was confused with a dialogue. i think the right greatly benefitted from the illusion of unanimity it created---until bush got into power and the reality implied by the policies limbaugh et al endorsed became clear. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-26-2006, 08:35 AM	#20 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	where DO they find the people for these "studies" and polls for that matter....I have never been asked my opinion on anything, heck I dont even get campaign calls at home and I've been a registered voter (and voted) since 1986 __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

09-26-2006, 08:39 AM	#21 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	1. as someone who has spent WAY too much time at ivy league schools, let me disabuse you of any illusion that the students in these schools are particularly radical politically. they aren't. the assumption that they are seems nothing more than a function of the extreme right's penchant for presenting itself as the populist victims of some elist "conspiracy"--which is just another variant of the populist right's obsession with its own victimization. 2. there is a anecdote floating about beneath ratbastids claim concerning 'liberal" vs rightwingers and the types of information preferred--i dont remember where i saw this--but in the context of the selection of talkingheads for television opinion management segments, conservatives tend to be significantly over-represented--but this because they have managed a tactical victory over their opponents and recognized the importance of reducing complex matters to sound bytes---"liberals" tend to try to explain their positions--conservatives tend to simply state them--so conservatives tend to be preferred for television opinion-management shows simply because their preferred mode of presentation fits better with the short-attention span, cut to commercial format of television infotainment. on this, you have to hand it to the right--they understood the television opinion management game better than others did. anyway, that is the specific story that i remember, and was reminded of by ratbastid's post above. i haven't seen anything in the way of broader surveys that reproduce this kind of result. but then again, i haven't looked. maybe i will now. 3. seaver: the tendency to stream information cuts in all directions. your claim concerning "liberals" is simply a reversal of what could be said about conservatives. it gets nowhere because it is simply projection. had you routed this through the ostensible topic of the thread--right talk radio--there woudl be an interesting conversation to be had because the GENERATING (not reflecting) of the illusion of unanimity of opinion seems to be a significant therpeutic function of such radio programming. that said, i do not listen to air america so for all i know they do the same kind of thing. but outside specific contexts, your remark about "liberals" means almost nothing. loop it through contexts so we can get somewhere please. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 09-26-2006 at 08:42 AM..

09-26-2006, 01:49 PM	#25 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	As a personal observation only, I agree with the standing of the progressive radio show hosts. They may be unfamiliar to many here because progressive radio hasn't been around for long and their audience numbers may be a reflection of that. (These people are all well known on the speaking circuit.) Schultz does an excellent job imo of keeping the show open to opposing viewpoints and he often has conservative guest speakers. For that reason I prefer his program over any others. Miller is an absolute kick to listen to (think Molly Ivans) but she is less open to dissenting opinion. I have only listened to Rhodes a few times so I can't speak to how open she is to opposing viewpoints. I just find her too obnoxious to listen to. Roachboy, thank you for the interesting observation of Limbaugh creating an appearance of overall agreement to his stances. I do recall his audience was called "ditto heads" and they seemed pleased by it. It seems somewhat similar to Reagan's invention of the "moral majority." Why would someone wish to identify themselves as the "immoral minority?"

10-01-2006, 05:44 PM	#29 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	I got through to Sean Hannity (there was a time I listened to him) and brought up what I considered great points he had no true substance to argue. He cut me off, and that was it. I cant listen to him or Limbaugh anymore without getting truly pissed. Even though I dont agree with some of his points the only one I can listen to at this point is Savage. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*