I fully support the rights of the individual to get their voice heard no matter what the message. The beauty of the radio is that I don’t have to listen to it if I don’t like it.

To clarify, Mary and I have discussed some of the things she’s advocating in terms of “balance” on the airwaves, and we don’t always agree. I don’t agree that some governmental oversight authority needs to step in and make WLAC or WTN alter their programming. I do think it would be nice if there were a broadcast opportunity based on community interest rather than profit in a number of communities, but it’s not an idea that I’m going to be able to defend fully until I’ve considered all the ramifications.

Bottom line: I’m no supporter of governmental control of airwaves, just as I’m no supporter of warrantless governmental scrutiny of the private lives of its citizens. The latter’s another discussion for another time, though…

I’m still at a lost to see why you think the government needs to get involved in “levelling the playing field” of talk radio, but I’m sure it makes perfect sense to you.

I think you’re still trying to use a hammer to fix a wristwatch though. Be careful what you wish for, sometimes when the government is used to “level the playing field” there are unintended consequences.

I am really saying that I don’t think NPR has a liberal bias. They do not even come close to presenting news in the ways that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill O’Reilly, Phil Valentine, or Steve Gill do. Or even a Neil Cavuto or a Brit Hume. And for each Bill Moyers you present, NPR and PBS provide airtime to a Jonah Goldberg or a David Brooks. I’m confident that you’ll reply that there are more left-leaning hosts and commentators on NPR than I’m acknowledging, and you might even come up with a Heritage Foundation study revealing that NPR is communist, to which I would probably respond with a Media Matters for America study revealing that Fox News is fascist and NPR is neutral.

When I want an alternative to Phil Valentine and Steve Gill, someone ranting and insulting people who hold alternative viewpoints, I’m not going to find it on WPLN. And, honestly, that’s not even the type of content Mary and I are setting out to create. We will be much more outright opinionated and editorializing than NPR will be. But when I want liberal talk in this area as an antidote to WLAC and WTN, I don’t turn to WPLN; I go the Internet and visit Air America.

I’ll go ahead and state for posterity that we’re so far apart that neither of us are going to make any points that the other will concede, so my end of swatting gadflies is done for now. See you on another post soon, I’m sure.

Yeah, it’s almost like someone saying that there is a big market for liberal radio programming because a bunch of people signed up for a newsletter or something. Crazy huh?

But seriously Freddie, are you really saying that you don’t think NPR has a liberal bias? Bill Moyers? Fresh Air? All Things Considered?
C’mon man. That’s just ridiculous. You’re not making a good argument by pretending that there isn’t any liberal radio programming in Nashville. I’ll agree with you that there is far more conservative talk radio than liberal, but to say there isn’t ANY liberal programming and ignore NPR altogether -which ironically would qualify as the type of government sponsored radio show you are seeming to be asking for- is just silly.

Sooooo that makes NPR a Marxist station? Libertarian? Zoororaastrian?

Let me ask you something, if someone takes a poll of the political affiliation of all of the employees at a radio station, and the results indicate a healthy majority vote for one particular party on a consistent basis, would it be accurate to say that there is a “political bias” at this radio station?

And please don’t try to sell me the opinion that NPR is liberal. Merely not adhering to a conservative viewpoint does not make something liberal.

NPR? Doesn’t that count? They have both an AM and FM station too.

The fact is that if there was a demand for liberal radio programming, there would be more liberal programming. The people/companies who advertise on radio just want the best return on their ads, thus they pay the stations that give them the best return. If there were more advertisers who thought that they would get a better return through liberal radio programming, then they would be advertising on them. Your “facts” don’t really tell a whole lot. Anectdotal evidence, website visits (*chuckle*) and a “commitment from sponsors” does not necessarily equate in to a huge untapped market for liberal programming.

For instance, one would conclude that New York City has a liberal leaning electorate, as that’s the way they vote. However, when Air America attempted to break in to the market, on the shoulders of massive investments from liberal benefactors no less, they have failed miserably. The numbers don’t lie.

I would be interested in hearing your explanation for the failure of liberal radio programming in Nashville. Why do you think there aren’t more liberal radio stations in Nashville?