Wild “Claims”
Missoula had a liberal progressive talk radio station. A manager for the station said “said the station under-performed in a progressive format, and they had to either ‘turn it off,’ sell it or change formats. The station considered changing to an all-sports format, but after looking at ratings from independent survey company Eastlan, they found conservative radio to be one of the top performers in ratings and revenue in the Missoula area,” so they switched to a conservative format.
This was noted at 4&20 Blackbirds: “Now, I imagine Gap West (who owns all three of those stations and a near handful of others around town) is probably claiming that he’s not able to generate any ad revenue on that station. Would seem hard to believe, given he owns the other two regressive stations and Missoula is a progressive town, university and all.” [Emphasis mine]
Oh, sure. The station was making money hand over fist, but the owner is such an ideologue, he nevertheless decided to pull the plug on his cash printing press so he could open another “evil conservative” radio station.
Now do you understand why they say that goofy sh*t about economics?
I keep having these images of some granolas in some beat up Subaru driving down to the health food coop, hitting the presets, and getting blasted by conservative talk.
Priceless.
Maybe the Wall Street money people made him do it.
Too bad KSEN doesn’t reach Missoula. Then everyone could enjoy the non-partisan, non-denominational morning polka tunes with their first cold one of the new day.
Somewhere I tried to make a larger point, always a mistake when around Randians, that there is more at stake here than mere profit-seeking by advertisers as they buy audiences from station owners.
One can drive from one end of this country to the other and if the radio is on, hear nothing but right wing talk. Maybe that is, as you say, the result of natural market forces (I doubt it, since such are the things of Randian mythology), but I’ll concede the point just for sake of argument. If that is where the market leads us, screw the market! We can do better than that.
Right wing talk radio is a medium where one speaker speaks to one listener, and that listener, if he is a right winger, only wants to hear one side. One speaker, one listener, one side only = propaganda. Or in the case of talk radio, agitation propaganda, or agitprop.
That’s not a good thing. Advertisers don’t own the airwaves, nor does Clear Channel. They are public property, and if we, like every other industrialized democracy, want to mandate that all views be allowed access, then screw you. That’s what we should do.
Given a choice between free markets and free expression of ideas, I’ll take the former every time.
Craig – Missoula has enough problems without polka in the morning. Thanks anyway.
Mark said: “Given a choice between free markets and free expression of ideas, I’ll take the former every time.”
Are you sure you meant this this way?
Steve, are you sure with all of the “self-hating” Missoulians????
================
Roll out the barrel, we’ll have a barrel of fun
Roll out the barrel, we’ve give the blues the runs
Zing boom tararrel, ring out a song of good cheer
Now’s the time to roll the barrel, for the gang’s all here
===================
Absolutely, Steve. As any propagandist will tell you,control of language is control of thought. The fact that you refer to unregulated markets as “free” limits your ability to examine them. Your thought processes are constrained.
Say “unregulated” instead of “free”, and a whole new world will open up for you.
It’s not surprising that conservative radio — and TV for that matter — would draw more advertising dollars. Businesses tend to be owned by Republicans, who would favor more conservative leanings. It’s the same reason the media, overwhelmingly, are conservative and biased to the right. The media are owned and controlled by conservative Republicans.
Anonymous, that jsut shows you how far to the left you are, even the media fess up to being liberal.
Well, first of all, Gap West bought out Clear Channel in Missoula and Bozeman. Clear Channel’s got nothin to do with it.
Second, nobody’s gonna win the ratings game without talent. Get a talented guy or gal who knows what people want to listen to and radio works.
As for “all across the country”, well, satellite radio, “all across the country” has LGBT and progressive and whatever your flavor is. If you don’t like ads, pay for it some other way and get exactly what you want.
Talk radio in little markets needs to have local flavor with good local talk show hosts. Otherwise, it’s scheit. It’s deteriorated in Bozeman because the talented guy is gone, and it didn’t take off in Missoula because it isn’t about ideology, but talent. Gap West’s top down management is going to wipe out the local talk radio guy. Period.
Talent! Desire! Individuals who make a difference! Yep, that sounds Randian, I know. But it’s just reality. Top down, whether left or right, isn’t gonna get it done. The marketers aren’t going to invent anything new.
Where’s Papa Joe Chevalier when you need him? Gap West Can Bite Me!
BTW, what ever happened to Air America? Wasn’t it George Soros who poured millions into it just to see it fail?
The idea that businesses will only support one particular political philosophy is a complete misunderstanding of what people in this country go to work for.
Businesses, being in the business to make money, tend to spend their budget on things that will give them a return on their investment. If advertising on a liberal talk radio staion would increase the sales at the local tire shop, the owner of the tire shop would advertise there. In Missoula, the listenorship of KMPT was not large enough to support an advertising base that would keep the radio station alive. It was time to change or die. That’s the way capitalism works. Currently, if you want to liberal philosophy, just turn on the local public radio station………..that’s the way socialism works. If you want to force people to listen to just one particular political philosophy, enact the Fairness Doctrine………that’s how fascism works.
BTW, I like KSEN’s polka moment. I also like the Big Joe Polka Show on TV. Oldtimers kicking up their heels and having fun….what’s not to like about that?
Once again, advertisers do not own our airwaves, nor are we obligated to let them have them for profit-making purposes. You’re caught up in an ideology that is at its base antisocial. That whole debate is beside the point. Who really gives a rat’s ass if some private corporation is making money off Missoula’s audience?
As I understand it, there was quite a debate around the time of the advent of radio in the early 20th century about how we were going to let it develop. Would it be public property, or would it be privately owned, or some mutant. The debate raged, the public lost, and AM radio came under the purview of private ownership. Later came FM and then NPR, but even NPR now is under the thumb of private corporations, and its content is accordingly bland.
So much had we degraded from the early to mid-twentieth century, that when TV came of age, there wasn’t even a debate. It went right to private viewership – not just private, but monopolistic. Later, as an afterthought, came PBS, which is now under the thumb of corporations.
Then came the Internet. There were meetings among government officials and corporate heads, and the Internet was simply handed over to the corporations, no debate – not even a public process. (As I understand it, maybe just urban legend, as these meetings were going on, visionary Bill Gates refused to attend, seeing no future in the Internet.) Now we are having an in-the-trenches debate about net neutrality, as large corporations seek to wrest final control of the Internet and monopolize it.
There is such a thing as general welfare and common ownership. The monopolization of AM radio by right wing forces should be outlawed, the Fairness Doctrine returned, becuase without a regulated marketplace, we cannot have a free exchange of ideas.
Mark, assuming advertisers won’t buy ads on progressive talk radio is pure nonsense. Business owners buy ads on media that reach the right demographic. The problem is more likely that the “:progressive” demographic is either too small or doesn’t have the buying power of other talk radio demos.
I’ve never met a small business person who gives a damn about the ideology of their customers as long as they have greenbacks to spend. And I’ve known thousands of them.
The fairness doctrine is nothing but a limit on the market for ideas. It seems those who support it – like you- are really afraid of intellectual competition. Cowboy up. If you has something people wanted to buy you could sell more of it.
Mark, the airwaves are free and owned by the public. Radio stations and broadcast equipment is not. Are you suggesting that we subsidize every point of view and allow it to be broadcast, even if no one listens?
That’s where you and I always differ. I always default to the idea that someone has to pay the bills, and you seem to choose the ‘principled’ position, and assume the group will pay for it.
“becuase without a regulated marketplace, we cannot have a free exchange of ideas.”
Orwell is alive and well apparently.
Yeah, Steve, that’s right. In an unregulated radio marketplace only the most powerful voice is heard. In a cacophony of voices, the strongest transmitter drowns out everything else. So much for standing up for the little guy.
Some claim that that is what is happening in the U.S. as major corporations purchase more and more of the radio licenses, with the same owners profiting from both TV and radio. The loss of print media (which isn’t utilizing a free, limited public resource such as the airwaves) is sad given the relatively cheap cost of starting up competitive voices.
The internet is intriguing because the backbone of the web was set up largely by government subsidies (and literally exists on public property, such as the alleys where cables run or the mountain tops where wireless towers stand). As media corporations buy up distribution operations (cable, in particular) we are seeing more and more claims to control the flow of information. Yes, Orwell would be fascinated by the discussion of ‘net neutrality’.
Mark T:
So by what right is it that you decide to force the citizens of Havre or Bozeman to pay for the radio station in Missoula so you can feel good about the diveristy of talking heads?
You are a walking contradiction dear sir. You constantly bark about the propoganda and control exerted over the mindless citizens but you condone government forced diversity on the air waves. The very same govt controlled by the two parties you so often condemn.
And man is this pricelss:
“…..want to mandate that all views be allowed access, then screw you. That’s what we should do.
Given a choice between free markets and free expression of ideas, I’ll take the former every time.”
I assume that in the last sentence you really meant to side with free expression rather than free markets, since your whole tirade is against free markets. Despite the fact you don’t understand what a free market is.
This aside, you want “FREE EXPRESSION” and you intend to get “FREE EXPRESSION” by “MANDATING THAT ALL VIEWS BE ALLOWED ACCESS”.
So it appears that in addition of no meaningful understanding of economics in general and free market capitalism in particular you are also completely lacking in any understanding of the term “FREE” as in “FREEDOM” .
Binky:
And by what right did the Government decide that the airways were both “limited” and “public resource”??
Don’t recall seeing that power enumerated in the Constitution.
What ever rationale you try to contrive for radio must apply to the internet as well don’t you think?????
Gregg: “Now do you understand why they say that goofy sh*t about economics?”
In Missoula, Yoga is a competitive sport. http://www.kpax.com/Global/story.asp?S=11466412 Twisted body, twisted mind perhaps?
Craig:
I’m thinkin we should get that group together with the Maggot Fest group.
A natural blending of brutality and flexibility. Twisted minds and damaged brains.
You may be onto something that explains the Missoula mystique.
I think we should look to the founders intent for a little insight,what would they do? The answer is clear . What I see is a government whose founding pillar is debate, The judiciary system strives hard to at least allow a defendant a full debate of the case before his peers. The legislative process has debate as the integral component. The most powerful example being the original power of filibuster where one guy could delay the process as long as he could stand ,the idea that at least all sides are heard. There was no such thing as a market place of ideas, it was called debate. Think of the legacy of Lincoln – Douglas debate. What do you think those two would think of Limbaugh and Beck.
I beleive that this legacy is where the fairness in broadcasting doctrine came from, its the way we do things in America. For me it boils down to this, say what ever you want about someone but look him in the eye when you say it.
Ken, a little history lesson. The filibuster came about accidentally through a loophole in Senate rules and not by design but by oversight. Secondly it was never employed until 1841.
Also, the fairness doctrine was not law until 1949. I don’t see anything in it that has anything to do with the founding principles.
If the filibuster where a bad mistake it would have been eleminated. The fairness doctrine was a result of the new technology of radio. It was a response to the fear of the totalitarian threats growing in the world. The first thing to go in a totalitarian system is debate.
Ken said: “It was a response to the fear of the totalitarian threats growing in the world. The first thing to go in a totalitarian system is debate.”
But you are fine with our own totalitarian threats that want to shut down an open source of discussion? Seems to me that it is more of an effort to shut down debate by regulating it.
One of us must be confused.
I’ll wrote about this more over at my website,
http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/agitation-radio/
Come visit if you are inclined. I have a fairly good understanding of the meaning of freedom, and treasure my own. But the expression “free markets” is Orwellian.
Dave: I mentioned an internal memo from ABC to its affiliates when Air America came on the air – these are our largest corporations, our creme de la creme. The message was blunt – these companies did not want their ads run when Air America programming was on. It happens, it happens all the time.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200610310008
Not a word about audience size in that letter. It was totally about content.
Steve – I am quite familiar with Orwell – we are constrained in our ability to ideate by the power of words. “Free markets” is an expression that literally blacks out a contradiction, nicely put forth by Binky up above. Read his post carefully. If you stop saying “free”and say instead “unregulated”, you’ll see a bigger picture.
Anyway, AM is a vast wasteland of right wing propagandists and carnival barkers. As with the Internet, a medium for free exchange of ideas, slowing coming under market control, the “free market” constrains us, makes us less free.
Steve, would you say that a high school debate was shut down by having a clock, rules and a moderator, or were those things necessary to the debate. There is no debate on right wing talk.
Steve , I forgot you also have two sides of a question presented at a highschool debate.
Christians make good use of AM radio under a different business model – they preach on the air and ask for contributions, and if they make money, they continue. If they don’t, they move on.
Ken, have you ever tried to call in? Even for the most rabid Right Wingers, that is difficult, but in my limited listening experience, I know that they always take the liberal caller first.
Under your scenario, it’s the same as if one side decided to not show up, and then declared the other side unfair.
Here’s what I think is “fair”. You own a radio station? You get to broadcast what you want to.
That’s fair.
Okay, that was my comment under Anonymous, above.
Imagine the “fairness doctrine” for taking a drive on the roads that are “owned by everyone”. You’d get stopped, “Hey, you drove an import yesterday. You need to drive a Chrysler today”. “I don’t like Mopars”. “Then you can’t drive anymore”.
Goof – I was holding that back for a rebuttal, but yes you are right. Since the roads belong to the public, and are maintained with public funds, why can’t we say that newspapers are too one sided, and we need to cut back their subscribers so that another newspaper can get its point of view out to the public.
Oops, after remembering what Obama did to the GM and Chrysler bondholders that may not be far off.
Is this goof 1.1, the improved version? That is an inane comment – I’m going to have to think about it. Ok done. Imagine driving on roads that are owned by everyone. Ok, done.
The Fairness Doctrine was simply a way of trying to keep public discourse on public airwaves. Imagine radio without a fairness doctrine – it would quickly be swallowed up by the loudest and best financed voices. Just imagine!
Mark, would you please go back to your linked post and clarify what the heck you are saying? Obtuseness is not a substitute for complexity.
I never claimed to be able to communicate with you. You go read it again, tell me specifically what you don’t understand, and I’ll try to help you.
Congrats to Electric City blogger Travis Kavulla who got to be one of the first few guests on KMPT after the format change last week- as “Voices of Montana” is now broadcast on KMPT in Missoula. We did a live show from there this morning- good times.
How else can you beat the fact that I started my day at the Farm Bureau Convention- where they had a live bull and heifer show in the parking lot of the Hilton in Missoula- and then hit the Good Food store for lunch…after stating to the Independent that we already have a “Public Option” when it comes to radio. I tried to stress that “progressives” in Missoula who want to isolate themselves with only hearing their own viewpoints should get over it- pick up the phone- and join the rest of the state in the conversation.
Aaron, It would be great if what happened on your program was a “conversation ” but that is not what you have been doing,take today with your two quests . I was allowed to make a comment to them with questions , then you hung up on me and the Farm Bureau guys proceeded to redefine what I had said and answer the questions they wanted to answer, an old talk show trick. On the issue of climate change you are up to about 7 or 8 guys slamming climate change legislation and one speaking the truth about it . Don’t call it a conversation, its pretty much ol time propaganda.
The father of conservative talk was a guy named William F. Buckly jr. He had a program called Firing Line on PBS fo 30 some years. Most of the shows contained beautiful debates between him and some capable liberal , what Buckly did was the exact opposite of Limbaugh and cowards like him.I realize you’re still putting this thing together so I sugggest you follow Buckly’s lead ,its the path with American style integrity.
Ken,
With all due respect you called in nearly every day last week. On farm subsidies- you’ve stated that same point before on multiple occasions- and the head of the Farm Bureau reflected on your comments and talked about subsidies decreasing. We’re hearing from more of the voices on climate change being ignored by the rest of the media here in the state. Yes- we heard from Dr Running (who, oddly enough- disagreed with your point of view). And today- we’ll hear from Linda Swift who supports climate change legislation. You’re right- we have had a higher number of people on the show opposed to cap and trade: why? Because we bring Montanans on the show talking about impacts on Montana. When it will cost the Laurel refinery $700 million- thats huge. When the Farm Bureau talks about the impact to farmers and ranchers- that’s huge. Why is that whenever the pro climate change side of the house sends a press release it makes front page of Lee Newspapers- yet when the MT Chamber of Commerce talks about MT companies opposed to it- it gets brushed aside? This is why the floor is being pulled out from the Ivory tower of the mainstream media.
You’re an important voice on the show Ken- and hopefully now that we are back on the air in Missoula -we can hear from more folks who share your viewpoint.
If you hadn’t hung up on me Aaron, I would of pointed out to the head of the farm bureau that most if not all of the decrease in subsidies probably came from the fact that most of the subsidies are tied to the price of the commodity and the presents of disasters. We had a couple of high price years with relatively small disaster requirements so that is the main reason payments are down, I beleive all the formulas are pretty much the same. You see, that is what would happen in a conversation. You should try it sometime, its called the truth.
As for Dr. Runnings comment I beleive what he said is that we all have to work together or it won’t work.
RC » Knowledge and Guide of Electric Rc Cars…
When flying a radio controlled helicopter just isn’t exotic enough for you any longer, you can entertain yourself by flying a hovering robot around instead….