Why don't any of the wealthy Progressives

[Upthevibe]

buy some radio stations? Here in Los Angeles, we lost Stephanie Miller and others (including Randi Rhodes) several years ago. It was 1150 on the a.m. dial and now it's called "Patriot Radio" with the worse of the right (Limbaugh, Hannit). We also lost a really good rock station called The Sound (100.3 f.m.) to some Christian outfit. Does anyone have any input or ideas on why someone like a Tom Steyer - (the guy who buys ads on MSNBC in support of impeaching dt) doesn't buy some stations? Also, is there a link that someone could post regarding exactly how we lost The Fairness Doctrine? I have a friend who blames Clinton (and she's a Dem.), and I don't know enough about what happened to say it wasn't Clinton....Thanks to anyone who can give me some feedback..

[Upthevibe]

1. I posted this in another thread but am making it its

own thread because I really do have some questions....

[oberliner]

2. Like George Soros?

Ted Turner?

[Upthevibe]

6. Yes. Like Soros and, as I mentioned,

Tom Stayer. He's spending a fortune on the T.V. commercials and completely preaching to the choir. How can this guy not know that? It REALLY seems to me like he could spend his money helping some of the elections coming up (and maybe he is). It's just that I'm so frustrated that we don't have ANY talk radio stations (except listener supported). I just don't understand....

[oberliner]

10. He has contributed to some media outlets

Also some would argue that sources like the NY Times are owned by wealthy progressives.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

55. If NYT is being run by progressives

than I'm deeply disappointed as they have been Trump apologists/coddlers since his election. And they were Bush-enablers back in the day (i.e. sitting on damaging information during the 2004 election). We can do better than them (and NPR)

[former9thward]

17. Tom Steyer is not running commercials for impeachment.

He is running those as to build up an activist core to run for President in 2020. That is why he is "preaching to the choir". I don't know if he is spending any money on the 2018 elections but the commercials are not really about Trump.

[Hortensis]

22. Where'd you pick up this anti-Steyer spin?

I haven't been paying any attention to him beyond an article or two, but it's inevitable that what he's doing would trigger the usual right-wing character assassination campaign. Or is it anti-Democrat left wing? Or both? Who's already investing to take him out in case he does run in 2020?

Please indulge a curious mind.

[Abnredleg]

30. There's a fair bit of speculation on his long-term goals

from both right and left wing commentators. Apparently he came close to deciding to run against Feinstein so he does have some political aspirations, but the notion that his impeachment campaign is just a tool to raise his visibility and create a voter database is very questionable in my opinion. On the other hand, it does seem that every other billionaire businessman in the country seems to be making plans to run for political office so it can't be totally ruled out.

I'm taking him at his word as to what his intentions are since he seems to be a decent guy, but I wouldn't be totally surprised if we seem him running for political office at some level in the years to come.

[former9thward]

41. I don't regard saying someone is running for president to be "character assassination".

But when someone is spending money calling for impeachment in various left Democratic venues then it is clear (to me) what is going on. If you have a different take, fine. As the poster I replied to said "why is he spending money preaching to the choir?" Why indeed?

[Hortensis]

44. "Tom Steyer is not running commercials for impeachment."

Those are your words and at best they insult Democrat Tom Steyer's character by claiming he is not seriously interested in impeaching Trump. That would make him a systematic liar. He's been running those commercials in all 50 states.

I just quickly went and found this very theme being hit on Free Republic and Breitbart and in a video by Alex Jones, as well as a couple of other hard-right sources I didn't open. And of course, it's spreading to other media -- not just here.

Sure, Abnredleg, Steyer's been open about possibly running someday. What I'm challenging is the impuning of his motives for calling for impeachment now. Of note, the right claims that ALL talk of impeaching Trump is phony because he's done nothing to be impeached for; those who believed that would also be inclined to believe what Former9th brought here to DU: That this is "not really about Trump," thus not about impeachment.

[brooklynite]

46. If he's that smart, he's smart enough to know that calls for impeachment are meaningless...

...unless Democrats control the House and Senate, in which case his millions of ad dollars could be targeted to support a wave election. Unless, as suggestion, this is a "butterfly net" to collect the names of prospective supporters for something down the road.

[Hortensis]

49. Steyer's made clear he's trying to start an impeachment movement.

Brooklynite, you are too smart to believe in false either-or slurs. That this campaign also makes Steyer a national name does NOT mean he's not serious about building national support for impeachment -- and THAT latter is the slur being pushed on the right.

Btw, I'm a one man, one vote person. I don't like billionaires of any orientation buying their way to political power. Supporting Steyer is not what this is about, but calling out right-wing propaganda for what it is.

[Squinch]

26. "Impeach Trump" commercials aren't reallly about Trump? Okie dokie.

[RKP5637]

3. I've always heard it was Bill Clinton, but I've not looked into it recently. n/t

[AJT]

4. The fairness doctrine died under Reagan.

[Upthevibe]

7. Do you know where I could find a concise and easy to understand

article explaining what the Hell happened?

[AJT]

9. Wikipedia

[GReedDiamond]

5. The FCC...

...eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

So, that happened during Reagan's second term.

[Upthevibe]

8. Thank you!

I just posted this question...

[JI7]

11. Liberals just aren't into talk radio as much

We have film, books, comedy, art shows and other things we enjoy doing.

While conservatives don't do much of that. And the stuff they do like play with guns is done while having talk radio on.

[Blue_true]

12. Exactly.

Talk radio is all about being angry about something. Liberals prefer facts and reason, not hot angry air.

[MichMan]

38. Yet, anger thrives here doesn't it ?

There is no lack of anger here on DU

[Blue_true]

43. Not nearly as intense as the anger over at Free Republic, JPR or other rightwing sites.

The "anger" here is more expressions of frustration than desires to hurt people or deny people human rights. There is a vast difference between progressive "anger" and rightwing anger, they aren't remotely the same.

[el_bryanto]

35. I think it might be fairer to say that people like points of view that support their own

Talk radio is sort of a precursor to the future really; conservatives didn't have a medium that catered to them other than a few newspapers, so Conservative Talk Radio filled that gap - and as more people started supporting Talk radio it proliferated. People enjoy it when their point of views are expressed and made to seem reasonable. They don't like having those views questioned or mocked.

That paints a troubling future as we have more and more outlets such that we can safely live in our own bubbles and never see ideas or opinions that contradict our own. While this problem is likely never to be as serious on the left side of the fence (just because we tend to value exploring intellectual ideas) - it certainly exists.

Bryant

[Lee-Lee]

13. Because after you buy a station you have to pay the bills

And that requires an audience gullible enough that advertising pays off on the station.

It can work in a few places, but not many.

And in my experience a big chunk of your left of center target audience is already locked into NPR and anyone doing this would be already competing with them for audience.

And your younger generation isn’t even listening to broadcast radio, they stream everything.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. However, Lee-Lee...

. . .we have plenty of reports for many years that Limbaugh and O'Reilly had shows that did not generate the sufficient revenue to cover their inflated salaries. So, they've been a loss leader for years.

The companies that own those properties are willfully taking a loss on the shows to get their propaganda out there.

I know the the rich radical right isn't as clever with wealth generation as they think they are, but they are getting their way politically.

[Lee-Lee]

27. I kind of doubt it

Broadcast radio in and of itself is an industry in its death spiral anyway. They are losing more market share every day to satellite and streaming.

Most of the station owners are not idealists, they just want to make money. Hell, the conservative station we have here in Asheville is owned by the same parent company that owns the progressive station. And I guarantee if there was a chance any other format would make more money for them they would in a heartbeat swap to sports talk, top 40 or anything else.

Even if in a few cases they take a loss on one show to get the audiences to stay before and after, as long as the overall station stays profitable the bills are paid.

And experience shows from past attempts that on most markets progressive talk just doesn’t pay the bills.

But, as I mentioned earlier, the future is in streaming and satellite. And those formats have much less overhead and barriers, so it’s a lot easier to keep more viewpoints on the air.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. I'm Not Really Encouraging Rich Liberals To Lose Their Money

I'm actually with you on this. The "lock-step" mentality required for even a modicum of financial success doesn't exist on our side of the aisle.

Just was pointing out that the other side considered a cost of doing business in the political realm and profit wasn't really their motive. Just look at the financial woes of iHeart and ClearChannel. If they were making the money to justify the exorbitant payouts to folks like Limbo and OhReally, they might not be in the same situation.

But, they did, in fact, get what they wanted on the macro scale. And the richest of those investors will be clean and still very, very rich, after the BKO activities play themselves out.

[NewJeffCT]

37. Reverend Moon lost over $1 billion on the Washington Times

but, they kept it going as a RW "alternative" to the supposedly liberal Washington Post.

[crazycatlady]

45. I'm a progressive and TBH probably wouldn't listen to progressive radio

I work in politics so I'm around it 24/7 for work. The time I typically listen to the radio (driving) is when I need a break from politics. So music it is.

I just turned 38. I don't have any friends who listen to the radio period, let alone AM radio. The only time I typically turn on AM radio is if I want a traffic report.

[0rganism]

52. willingness to tank a loss for several years is what sets the RW agitprop maestros apart

for many years, the Fox talk radio hosts were taking losses. Murdoch ponied up anyway, because they were a solid long-term investment. when advertisers wouldn't pay for the shows, Fox covered. now Murdoch's ridiculous politics are ascendant.

compare that with the Air America network, and how its inability to immediately rake in profits scared the investors away.

you're right on about younger people though -- maybe if Democrats and Democratic sympathizers can establish a solid streaming center with quality entertainment mixed in with news-talk, there could be a market, and a long game.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. The Fairness Doctrine is largely misunderstood.

It is of little value right now.

I can post why, but suggest you google it yourself. It is very interesting.

[appalachiablue]

15. I & others have posted the same question about Prog Radio & I don't get the apathy.

Hate Radio and Rush exploded after 1987 when Reagan repealed the 1949 Fairness Doctrine. And FOX TV started in 1996, same year as the Telecom Act which took regulations off media and allowed for major consolidation into the 6 Mass Conglomerates we have now.

It's a very unhealthy system with the loss and lack of liberal radio/broadcast voices like Stephanie, Randi and others. Al Gore's Current TV didn't make it but FREE SPEECH TV is still around and great, via online or Dish, Direct TV, etc.

But what's clear to me is that having NO PROGRESSIVE RADIO channels and programs anymore is dangerous. Many people like to listen on the road or at home, and they like hearing AUDIO broadcasts.

Having only RW radio voices, especially in the last several years of mass consolidation is spooky. The absence of any balance now is glaring. And what about average people that don't follow alternative and fair news coverage on DU and other sites, and may not know about the media landscape and reasons for recent major changes?

As to why no more efforts at left media- I've heard that the Internet is dominant now; the failure of Air America means liberal broadcast media can't be attempted again (?!); and how Sirius FM subscription Radio carries some prog channels and voices.

Many assume that NPR and PBS TV are left leaning, but aren't esp. since they've become increasingly influenced by corporate funding over the years.

Who knows, but it's quite evident that persons like Tom Steyer or George Soros working on this issue and supporting better media overall would be a major benefit for the left.

*FREE SPEECH TV, available 24/7 Online, via Dish or Direct TV & other venues. Show hosts Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, Laura Sanders, Sonali, Karel, Gay USA and more. Also excellent programs on current affairs, activism and movements, US and global politics, and the environment. https://freespeech.org/

[Upthevibe]

19. Thank you, appalachiablue....

You perfectly expressed what I'm feeling...

[uponit7771]

23. +1, 50% of republicans thought Pizza Gate was real. Those %'s don't get that high if there was some

... opposition to the stupid.

[Demsrule86]

34. Conservative radio is supported by wealthy conservatives these days...and we have pretty much driven

those sort of donors who are Democrats out of the party...radio doesn't support itself these days...thus conservatives prop it up for ideology. We should court wealthy donors and do the same thing...money matters. It is all about the grass roots...and corporate is out...we have seen with the lose of the House in 10, the senate in 14 and presidency in 16 how this policy has failed us...and along the way we lost governors and ended up with a gerrymander of the house on steroids. We should see a blue wave this year, but we can't count on it with the gerrymander. We have to overperform.

[lunasun]

16. I try to support the advertisers of my favorite stations- music ones and talk . It helps that most

of the stations I listen to have a lot of local advertisers and events.

We have a local progressive AM station that has some national syndicated shows like Miller, but also esp. on the weekends there are fantastic local shows and that is what really makes it special . Also besides local sales local unions support and advertise on the station
I think community support and local on air representation about local issues , makes the difference in staying power

[Upthevibe]

20. I completely agree, lunasun...

Local support is so important...

[Yavin4]

18. Because radio is a dying business

They don't make any money. People listen to free podcasts.

[Upthevibe]

21. I realize that radio is on the downturn

and I LOVE listening to podcasts but I don't have subscription radio in my car so my options are the old-fashioned am/fm dial....

[mythology]

24. If you have an auxillary input on your car stereo you can plug in a phone or mp3 player

and play podcasts in the car.

[Hoyt]

28. Air America was great, even Al Franken was on there. But just not enough listeners.

Loved Rhodes and Miller's show.

[Demsrule86]

33. The idea that conservatives support talk radio is no longer true if it ever was...it is supported by

rich conservative donors...

[Hoyt]

36. Are you saying wealthy donors support Aholes like Rush Limbaugh? I think he has plenty of listeners,

deplorable as they are.

[Demsrule86]

56. They do support him as the boycott several years ago was very successful and he lost advertisers...

no matter how many listeners you have, you need advertisers unless you are supported by rich deplorables like Trump and many of the others as well. The syndicators of these show are losing money.

[poboy2]

48. This is true and glad you are correcting the truth of the matter. -nt

[Demsrule86]

57. It is true...and worth every penny in terms of advancing their hideous agenda and propaganda.

[FSogol]

31. Because liberal radio has always been a big failure. we use our brains & don't want to be

spoon-fed pap tailored to our opinions. We want intelligent insightful news from a variety of sources. We want to consider both sides of arguments. That makes for pretty crappy entertainment and will always fail against flashy blowhards and bleached blonds in tight skirts spewing radical hatred. We need to force the NPRs to do better, not create left leaning Fox Radio.

[poboy2]

47. I this this is all untrue.

[FSogol]

51. Wow, compelling counterargument! Kudos!

[poboy2]

54. Thank you. I've heard this excuse before, and its nonsense.

Talk radio can be any format. Its nice to think we are better or whatever argument that suits to. make lemonade from lemons, but it is not based on any reality, only things we tell ourselves- or allow ourselves to be told and believe this narrative. As a few other have pointed out, big money backs the message over profit. Profit is good, but messaging is essential.

[Demsrule86]

32. Wealthy donors were driven out of the party as corporate.

Pres. Obama banned contributions from political action committees as well as lobbyists during his presidential run in 2008. Now he did ok with the small donors etc...but in 10, Congress fared badly. I believe this hurt us.

[FarCenter]

39. Radio is listened to by people in cars and trucks.

AM radio is even more selective, being the choice mainly in areas away from major cities out of FM reach.

[Atman]

40. Progressives dont listen to talk radio for self-affirmation.

We listen to news, we listen to music, we don’t tune in to hear someone praise us for following them. Progressive radio has proven to be a losing proposition. That talk-radio cult shit is for brainless drones who need to be told that their hatred and backward thinking is shared by other bigots and morons, so they’re just reg’lar people.

[Upthevibe]

42. Well, I just know that when I worked about an hour from

when I lived (I think around 2003-2004) I didn't get off until 10 p.m. Rachel was on Air America and it made the drive home actually enjoyable. For me, it's not about what you said it is for you Atman. I just enjoyed listening. I like listen to music too. Having said that, there really does seem to be a big difference in the so called success of Limbaugh and those of his ilk and the apparent lack thereof (such as Air America).....it's really a shame....

[Caliman73]

50. It may also be the difference in the way that Progressives and Conservatives are wired.

There was a media study back several years now, that showed Fox News being a prominent force in cable television, consistently beating CNN and MSNBC for viewership (not that CNN is liberal). The results were interesting in that 70%+ of people identifying as conservative only watched Fox news and only consumed media from one or two other sources. Those identifying as liberal, had at least 6 outlets that they listened to or read consistently.

This supports some things that have already been said on this discussion. Progressives look for information from a variety of sources and media while Conservatives tend to stay with one source. This is likely because of our make up and socialization. Progressive leaning people are often less prone to accept information from one source as true and seek to confirm or refute through other sources. Conservatives on the other hand, tend to favor sources that confirm their ideas. There is obviously a good deal of overlap and I am not saying that Progressives are just better, smarter, etc... it is just a different mentality and explains 2 things, 1) why it is often so difficult to unite Progressives around one candidate or platform AND 2) Why media aimed at a "progressive" audience is less likely to develop a large and loyal following from Progressives.

Rachel has her loyal followers, as do Miller, Rhodes, Hartmann, Malloy, Signiorelle, Bill Press, etc... there are always people who will tune in but unlike Conservative shows, Progressives will jump from any of those shows to other shows, and other forms of media.

Like Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

[poboy2]

53. Talk radio can be any format. Its nice to think we are better or whatever argument that suits to

Talk radio can be any format. Its nice to think we are better or whatever argument that suits to. make lemonade from lemons, but it is not based on any reality, only things we tell ourselves- or allow ourselves to be told and believe this narrative. As a few other have pointed out, big money backs the message over profit. Profit is good, but messaging is essential.

[Turbineguy]

58. The economic nature of things is

that "conservatives" are gullible and progressives are not.