Liberals hate free speech when it's not their own

The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio - A Joint Report by the Center for American Progress and Free Press

You may have read about this report by now - perhaps this CNS article; it was published last week. Intrigued, I actually slogged through the whole report, all 40 pages. It is, as one might expect, a skillful bit of propaganda dressed up with lot of statistical fluff - much of it incapable of proving the claims asserted.

The CNS story is right to connect the dots between this report and some other recent stories linking prominent Dems to a desire for tighter broadcast censorship - Sen. James Inhofe's (R-OK) recollection of a conversation overheard between Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Senate majority leader Dick Durbin's (D-IL) support for a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, among others - and, not just Dems, even Sen. Trent Lott's (R-MS) complaint about talk radio running the Congress.

There is a hollow ring to statements in the report itself and by various authors and others speaking for its sponsors denying any such intent to support revival of the Fairness Doctrine if you read the report carefully.

"There are many potential explanations for why this gap exists. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves." [SOURCE: Center for American Progress]

But this assertion is undercut by two points.

First, the report uses phrases like "public trustee" and "public interest" - which they say the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is not enforcing adequately - as code for the nanny state mindset they want to resurrect.

Second, the report actually states on page six:

First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it again—thus it technically would not be considered repealed. [Footnote numbers omitted]

I will pass over trying to condense the substance, such as it is, of the report which includes such astounding findings as that minority-owned stations are more likely to carry "progressive" talk shows.

What is not in the report is much more revealing - that old elephant in the parlor that no one talks about.

The most glaring lacuna is the treatment of audience ratings. There is some tabulated data on audience shares in the report, but not what one might expect. For example, Clear Channel, the 800 pound gorilla of the radio industry - and ownership concentration is the report's main complaint, offers both progressive and conservative talk show line-ups in some major markets. How do their ratings compare? The report is silent.

Looked at across all owners, several more of these markets offer both conservative and progressive talk line-ups. How do market shares (which dictate advertising rates) compare for the two types of programming, especially at equivalent times of day? Silence.

Another intriguing omission in the report is that it simply ignores the hours of programming for hosts that it deems not classifiable as either conservative or progressive. Do moderate opinions not count? Do they not serve the public interest? The report doesn't explain this adequately.

The report also omits the hours of progressive talk programming provided by National Public Radio (NPR) by omitting from its universe of data all non-commercial licensees.

The report's recommendations are predictable: a return to a three-year license renewal cycle (it is currently eight years), a significant reduction in the number of stations owned by one company in a single market, and a fee for licensees to pay to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to distribute to NPR if they are not sufficiently progressive.

What will shorter renewal cycles do except divert FCC staff from what the report claims is already inadequate oversight?

How will the authors view a greater divesity of station ownership when there are ten or twelve major players instead of the four cited in the report and none of them has a line-up like that of the late, unlamented Air America?

If they want more money for CPB to give to NPR, shouldn't the amount be set by congressional appropriations and not by subjective evaluations of FCC bureaucrats?