Comments on: Why the Free Market Doesn’t Apply to the Media

By: Tman

Tman — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:55:50 +0000

““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?

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:39:39 +0000

“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.

By: Tman

Tman — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:20:52 +0000

“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?

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:12:33 +0000

“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.

By: Tman

Tman — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:45:33 +0000

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.

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:58:36 +0000

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.

By: Tman

Tman — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:49:51 +0000

“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?”

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.

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:15:04 +0000

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.

By: Tman

Tman — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:24:31 +0000

“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?

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:23:26 +0000

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.