Why the Free Market Doesn’t Apply to the Media
In response to the brouhaha surrounding Natalie Maines’ comments about President Bush and the subsequent threat on her life, the Dixies Chicks asked the following question on their last album, “And how in the world/Can the words that I said/Send somebody so over the edge/That they’d write me a letter/Saying that I better shut up and sing/Or my life will be over?” I have the answer, ladies. It’s the kook juice, also known as what passes for civil discourse on conservative talk radio. It was the right-wing radio hate and fear mongers who, instead of disagreeing with what Maines said while standing up for her right to say it, painted a bull’s-eye on her back by repeating over and over again that she was un-American, un-patriotic, and that she “hated” not only the president but the troops as well. They called for the demonization of the Chicks and without any opposing viewpoint able to make it through the din of their talk radio monopoly, they got it.
In Nashville alone these right-wing conservative talk shows have 34 hours a day in which to spout their hate. As Freddie said in his testimony to the FCC yesterday, that’s 170 hours per week on two full-powered stations as opposed to our 2 hours. And spout it they do - falling lock-step in line with the same talking points and riling up the community to commit acts of violence while perpetuating hateful stereotypes against people that don’t think, or for that matter, look, exactly as they do (It’s no coincidence that the rise in violence against our latino community coincided with the rise of anti-immigration rhetoric on conservative talk shows). The President could be generous in his comments about the Dixie Chicks and their right to Free Speech because his conservative talk radio lap dogs had his back and could punish Maines and her bandmates in far, far more effective and less politically damaging ways.
The answer we consistently get to our protestations of a radio spectrum overrun by conservative voices is the one echoed by AC Kleinheider over at his WKRN-sponsored blog, Volunteer Voters. Conservative talk radio is what the market wants. Liberal, or radio and TV shows featuring other opposing opinions, aren’t more prevalent because they are not viable.
I don’t believe it necessary to defend what we do to the freemarketeers. We don’t do what we do to make the big bucks. We do what we do because we love democracy and the free exchange of ideas - all ideas.
But more importantly, and this is something I was reminded of by my friend Lonnie Atkinson’s FCC hearing testimony yesterday, free market principles do not, and absolutely should not, apply to the media.
The public airwaves belong to the public. The public’s right to know as complete a list of diverse opinions and ideas as possible should be paramount to “what the free market will bear.” This is important so listen up: The Public airwaves belong to the public and the people’s edification should be what is considered first and foremost, above market forces, when making programming choices and rule changes. Period. End of story.
This is where the FCC comes in. The FCC was created to serve the public good and to make sure that free market forces do no overrun our public airwaves. Should it matter that there isn’t more of a market demand for liberal talk radio (or progressive talk or civil dialogue of whatever the hell you want to call it)? The short and correct answer, even though I don’t agree with the premise, is no.
Is it doing a disservice and and injustice to the citizens of Nashville that they are being force fed 170 hours of conservative talk radio per week without an equal amount of talk radio with a different message or point of view? Absolutely. And if you buy into the argument that there should be a “balance” between market forces and serving the interest of the public, is this one-sidedness even accomplishing that? Absolutely not.
Our democracy needs a relentless free flow of information from a broad range of disparate voices to sustain itself. It needs to hear all the opinions of our school board members; it needs to hear the plans of our mayoral candidates for environmentally sound development; it needs to hear the unfiltered stump speeches of our state house and senate hopefuls; and it needs to hear all sides of the immigration debate from our metro council. Without diversity of opinion, without the exchange of ideas, without civil dialogue in the metaphorical public square, our democracy loses its life’s blood.
In his post, AC states that there are other place to find different ideas and voices. But we need to compare apples to apples here. It was amazing to me that so many arguments for media consolidation during yesterday’s FCC hearing was elitist in its clear disregard for disparities in income as it relates to being able to afford internet access, satellite radio, and even basic cable. AC falls into the same trap.
And if income isn’t enough of a deterrent, lets consider time constraints. Those of us (including those lucky bloggers that get paid to do it…ahem…) who are able to plug into the internet 24 hours of every day searching for alternative opinions from such sources as Truthout or The Guardian are the exception, not the rule. Most Americans get their scant news while driving to or from work or turning on the television at night and many have only the time to scan the headlines of a newspaper.
Radio and television, or traditional media outlets, are important because they are free. “Free” as in most Americans already own at least one radio or one television. “Free” as in you don’t need to buy a computer or pay a monthly access or subscription fee. “Free” as in radio and TV is available to those Americans who do not work in an office setting with computers and internet access provided to them by their employers.
So don’t talk to me about what the market will bear. This is not about the “marketplace” but rather the “marketplace of ideas,” a belief that not only the truth, but also outstanding public policy, arises out of the competition of all different ideas ushered into the marketplace by open and candid public discourse. And public discourse, we know, is the cornerstone of our liberal democracy.
Next Up: Why AC and others are wrong about the viability of liberal talk radio.
This post was written by Mary Mancini
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 12th, 2006 at 5:47 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Mary, thanks for this. I read Ack’s post and had the exact same thoughts. The market forces argument is lame, at best. The public will digest anything if thats all they get. Media consolidation, coupled with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, will lead to more poorly thought out “wars”, and insure that our country continues to enact knee jerk punitive policies that adversely affect those in our communities least able to fight back. I particularly loathe how these Hate radio broadcasts are carried by supposed “News” stations.
December 13th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Mary-
“Is it doing a disservice and and injustice to the citizens of Nashville that they are being force fed 170 hours of conservative talk radio per week without an equal amount of talk radio with a different message or point of view?”
How are they “force fed” 170 hours of conservative talk radio per week? Do we require that people listen to 99.7 every day instead of NPR? This doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t like what’s on the radio, either change the channel or turn it off. You aren’t being “force fed” anything, that’s ridiculous. What we’re talking about is the fact that PBS and NPR receive almost half a billion dollars of tax-payer money each year, and they don’t represent the people paying for it, unless you believe that the majority of the country is overwhelmingly liberal.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Truman, I don’t agree with your premise that PBS and NPR are liberal mouthpieces. My common sense tells me that Jim Lehrer doesn’t get his talking points from the White House before he writes his News Hour. NPR & PBS may not report with your chosen bias but that doesn’t mean they are liberal. Kind of like the activist judges thing. If judges don’t rule in your favor, then they MUST be activist judges.
As I said, let’s compare apples to apples. 170 hours of conservative talk “entertainment” compared to 2 hours of liberal “entertainment” is simply not fair.
December 13th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
You are cherry picking your numbers Mary. What about the admittedly liberal bias of the alphabet networks? What about Moyer? What about the various NPR shows that bash America without shame?
And you have avoided answering this question- How are we “force fed” 170 hours of conservative talk radio per week?
Who’s holding a gun to my head making me listen to Rush?
You say it “isn’t fair” that there are more choices for conservative viewpoints than liberal ones on the airwaves. How does “fair” have anything to do with it?
December 13th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
You are cherry picking your numbers Mary. What about the admittedly liberal bias of the alphabet networks? What about Moyer? What about the various NPR shows that bash America without shame?
You are rapidly falling into cliche territory.
But you are right in that no one holds a gun to your head to listen to Rush. But if you wanted to listen to another Rush-like show other than what comes from conservative talk radio (and remember to compare apples to apples here) where would you go? NPR? No. NPR is a news and publiic affairs network, not liberal talk radio.
I’m not talking about a “slant,” here. I am talking about straight-from-the-Republican-party’s-fax-machine talking points. That’s what comes out of WLAC and WWTN and that’s why you cannot compare what’s on these stations with what’s on NPR.
And “fair” is important because the public owns the airwaves and should have more choices when it comes to talk radio than Rush and Hannity and O’Reilly and Gill and Valentine. Free market principles should not apply.
December 13th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
“NPR is a news and publiic affairs network, not liberal talk radio.”
I suppose “Fresh Air with Terry Gross” does not qualify. Not liberal enough for you? “All Thing Considered”?
“you cannot compare what’s on these stations with what’s on NPR.”
Ok, for the sake of argument let’s say you’re right. Your solution is to have the government do what exactly?
Force Rush off the air? Shut down Savage? Hem in Hugh Hewitt?
What’s the answer? You say that “Free market principles should not apply. “- then which principles should?
It sounds like you are asking for censorship of opinions with which you do not agree. How is that even remotely fair?
December 13th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
I’m certainly not asking for Rush Limbaugh to be forced off the airwaves or for the censorship of opinions with which I do not agree. I would never stand for it.
There is middle ground here. It’s called equal time and it used to be a bedrock principle of the traditional media. I would like for our government to regulate the airways so that there is a balance. That’s all I’m asking for. A balance. Half the people in this country are not Republicans so why doesn’t the talk radio that’s on our airwaves reflect that? The programmers of WLAC and WWT N should be held accountable for their one-sided programming - a small price for them to pay for the use of two very powerful cash cow frequencies.
December 13th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
“I would like for our government to regulate the airways so that there is a balance.”
So who pays for this “balance”? I’m of the opinion that whenever the government decides they “need to redress the balance” that I better hold on to my wallet. And do honestly believe the government could possibly come to a consensus on what constitutes a balance? That’s pure fantasy.
“Half the people in this country are not Republicans so why doesn’t the talk radio that’s on our airwaves reflect that?”
Because the people who pay for the radio towers and the electric bills that allow them to power their signals on the “free” airwaves are the advertisers. And those people want to pay for ad space on stations that will reach the people they are trying to sell to. Apparently those companies believe that conservative radio is a more lucrative market than liberal radio. It’s pretty much the opposite on the “free” airwaves of television. One could complain that half the people in this country are not Democrats so why doesn’t the tv programming that’s on our airwaves reflect that.
But I won’t, because it’s a stupid argument.
If you want the government to be in charge of the “free airwaves” I suggest something like a Cuba, or North Korea. They will make sure it’s fair alright.
Everyone will be equals! Unfortunately, everyone will be equally miserable.
December 13th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
I usually end conversations when someone tells me, a fellow American, that I should go to a communist or socialist country because I disagree with them. It’s insulting and juvenile and typical of what we hear on conservative talk radio. I have never heard any liberal talk radio host (myself and Freddie included) suggest that conservatives or Republicans move to another country. It’s just something we don’t do because we believe in our democracy too much. Can you understand that? However, for the sake of this discussion, I will assume that you were simply trying to make a point with your Cuba and North Korea reference.
So who pays for this “balance”? I’m of the opinion that whenever the government decides they “need to redress the balance” that I better hold on to my wallet.
And I’m of the opinion that whenever the government decides they need to declare war that I better hold on to mine. I would choose spending my money on regulation of the airwaves and public education and healthcare, over war mongering.
Because the people who pay for the radio towers and the electric bills that allow them to power their signals on the “free” airwaves are the advertisers. And those people want to pay for ad space on stations that will reach the people they are trying to sell to.
I have an idea. If the people who “own” the licenses for WLAC and WWTN can’t seem to make ends meet with balanced programming then I suggest they give the licenses up to someone who can. But let’s face it. They’ll make money either with all conservative talk or a balance of conservative talk with other programming. It’s simply a matter of how much money they’ll make. As Wendall Rawls said in his FCC testimony hearing, “It’s greed, pure and simple.” Economic power, can and will, when left unchecked, restrict the free flow of discourse and ideas. Regulation is a much-needed and critical part of balancing the public service responsibility of the media with their private profit purpose.
“It’s pretty much the opposite on the “free” airwaves of television. One could complain that half the people in this country are not Democrats so why doesn’t the tv programming that’s on our airwaves reflect that.”
I don’t agree with the premise that TV is dominated by liberals so I fear we will never reach a consensus on this issue.
As for Cuba and North Korea, there is a difference between a controlled media and regulated media.
December 13th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Mary,
No, I wasn’t suggesting you move to Cuba. I was merely trying to make a point that what you are proposing would require a massive oversight on the part of the government, and I believe there already is TOO MUCH oversight by the government. You are basically proposing affirmative action for radio stations, but the problem is that the constitution doesn’t have a part that says “life will be fair for all, and if one political philosophy is unable to convince people to listen to them on a regular basis then the government will step in and make sure they have enough to do so.”
I’ll quote PJ O’Rourke (which I’m sure will make you very happy)-
“Government is an abstract entity. It doesn’t produce anything. It isn’t a business, a factory or a farm. Government can’t create wealth; only individuals can. All government is able to do is move wealth around. In the name of fairness government can take wealth from those who produce it and give wealth to those who don’t. But who’s going to be the big Robin Hood? Who grabs all this stuff and hands it back out? (Remember: even in a freely elected system of government, sooner or later that person is going to be someone you loathe. If you’re a Republican, think about Donna Shalala; if you’re a Democrat, think about Ollie North.)
When government takes wealth from those who produce it, people become less inclined to produce more of it-or more inclined to hide it. Conversely, when government gives wealth to those who don’t produce it, they too become less productive since they’re already getting what they’d produce in return for not producing it.
If government is supposed to make things good, what kind of good is it supposed to make them? And how good is good enough? And who’s going to decide? What person is so arrogant as to believe he knows what every other person in America deserves to get? (We ll, actually, all of Washington, press and pundits included, is that arrogant. But never mind.) Individual liberty is lost when government stops asking “What is good for all individuals?” and starts asking “What is good?” To ask the latter question is to abandon a system in which all people are considered equal and to adopt a system in which all people are considered alike. Collective good replaces individual goodies. Government will make life fair. But since limited government is hardly suitable to a task of this magnitude, the role of government will need to be expanded enormously. Government will have to be involved in every aspect of our lives. Government will grow to a laughable size. Or it would be laughable except for our experience in this century.
Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China and dozens of smaller places around the world did indeed create just such leviathan governmental engines of “good,” and the dreadful history of the 20th century is in large part a history of the terrible results of these collectivist endeavors. Once respect for the individual is lost, then what do 100 million dead individuals matter-especially if their deaths are for the “collective good”?
I would choose spending my money on regulation of the airwaves and public education and healthcare, over war mongering.
We already spend more than anyone else does on public education and healthcare. You think MORE money will automatically fix everything? That would go against the evidence at hand, warmongering or not.
“Economic power, can and will, when left unchecked, restrict the free flow of discourse and ideas.”
Who says it’s unchecked? Sarbanes-Oxley? Anti-trust legislation? Do you realize what you’re proposing is to restrict the free flow of one particular idea so that your particular idea can be more widely disseminated? Who made you king?
“I don’t agree with the premise that TV is dominated by liberals so I fear we will never reach a consensus on this issue.”
I don’t agree that radio is necessarily dominated by conservatives, they just seem to make more money doing it.
December 14th, 2006 at 11:12 am
“life will be fair for all, and if one political philosophy is unable to convince people to listen to them on a regular basis then the government will step in and make sure they have enough to do so.”
No, I’m saying that there should be a “free” way for the American people to get information that is varied - different ideas and opinions - so that they can fully particpate in the democratic process. This “free’ access has traditionally been radio and TV. Again, if programmers can’t make a go of station by programming balanced programming then the license should go to someone who can. And you better believe that the line to get the license would be seven miles long.
December 14th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
“I’m saying that there should be a “free” way for the American people to get information that is varied - different ideas and opinions - so that they can fully particpate in the democratic process.
You mean “free” as in “tax-payer funded” way to get this supposedly “varied” information. I thought that was what PBS and NPR were for, to the tune of half a billion dollars a year in tax-payer funds.
“This “free’ access has traditionally been radio and TV.”
Provided the person has a “free” tv or radio.
“Again, if programmers can’t make a go of station by programming balanced programming then the license should go to someone who can. “
So unless the stations are 100% non-biased “balanced” programming we should revoke their licenses? Sounds completely unrealistic to me. Legislating fairness, yes, that’s what the government should do! It’s worked so well so far!! (that was supposed to be sarcastic).
Mary, you still haven’t answered the question- who is going to pay for this “free” service?
December 14th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
“You mean “free” as in “tax-payer funded” way to get this supposedly “varied” information. I thought that was what PBS and NPR were for, to the tune of half a billion dollars a year in tax-payer funds.”
Nope. Not what I mean at all. “Free” as in the end-user (hearer?) doesn’t have to pay for it - no cable subscription needed, no satellite subscription needed, no computer needed, no internet access needed.
“Provided the person has a “free” tv or radio.
It’s the closest thing we have to “free.” Transistor radios cost a heckuva lot less than TV’s and computers and monthly subscription services.
So unless the stations are 100% non-biased “balanced” programming we should revoke their licenses?
Nope. But they could make a much better effort than they are now. Would you settle for 60-40? 70-30?
Mary, you still haven’t answered the question- who is going to pay for this “free” service?
The advertisers will pay to provide the “free” service just as they always have.
December 15th, 2006 at 11:55 am
““Free” as in the end-user (hearer?) doesn’t have to pay for it - no cable subscription needed, no satellite subscription needed, no computer needed, no internet access needed.”
But we (the taxpayers) have to pay for it to get broadcasted somehow. As you are well aware, these signals aren’t generated by good intentions.
“Transistor radios cost a heckuva lot less than TV’s and computers and monthly subscription services.”
Then you go buy them for everybody. Listening to a radio is a privilege, not a right.
“But they could make a much better effort than they are now. Would you settle for 60-40? 70-30?”
How? You want to reward ideas that failed in the marketplace and punish those that were successful. This isn’t helping anyone.
“The advertisers will pay to provide the “free” service just as they always have. ”
So you are going to force advertisers to pay for ad space on stations that they don’t want to buy ad space on? So far everything you’ve described is much more like a government controlled media. Controlling what the advertisers buy, controlling what political ideals the radios broadcast, controlling who gets to broadcast what, where and when. Where does the “free” part come in?