Conservative Dominance of Political Talk Radio
Tune in to a political talk radio show these days and what are you likely to hear? Probably a conservative host lambasting the left (or, for that matter, excoriating John McCain). A 2007 report by the Center for American Progress and Free Press documented the conservative dominance of political talk radio.
First a clarification: The political leaning of the researchers obviously tilts leftward (the Center for American Progress bills itself as a “progressive think tank”), but their methodology was so straightforward and transparent that one can judge for oneself the extent to which this could have mattered. (See below for one response from conservative critics of the report.) What they did was (1) classify the various talk show hosts as either “conservative” or “progressive” (placing, for example, Bill Bennett, G. Gordon Liddy, and Rush Limbaugh in the former category and Air America, Bill Press, and Al Sharpton, among others, in the latter); and (2) second, record the amount of airplay that each side got on the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners during May of 2007. Here are some of their findings:
- 91% of the programming (2,570 hours per weekday) was hosted by the conservatives, 9% (254 hours) by the progressives.
- 92% of the stations (236 of the 257) broadast no progressive talk radio programming at all.
- Broken down according to station ownership, the numbers are as follows: Clear Channel (145 stations): 86% conservative. Citadel (23 stations): 100% conservative. Cumulus (31 stations): 100% conservative. Salem (28 stations): 100% conservative. CBS (30 stations): 74%. One owner, CBS, stands out from the rest politically, but still shows a 3:1 conservative-to-progressive ratio.
- In some markets (most notably, New York and Chicago), the ratio is close to 1:1. In others (Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, it’s 100% conservative or very close to it.)
To the best of my knowledge, the primary concern that has been publicly voiced about these data is that because they pertain exclusively to the five largest commercial station owners, they don’t take into account content from other radio providers, e.g., universities and public stations, which do provide outlets for liberal viewpoints. That is not to say that the figures in the report are “wrong,” but rather that they don’t provide a full accounting of what one can hear on the radio.
In any event, what does the report portray as the sources of the tilt in the political coverage offered by the largest radio congomerates? Here the authors of the report move from matter-of-fact data recitation into the realm of interpretation. They consider but reject two explanations: that it is a consequence of the “repeal” of the Fairness Doctrine and that it merely reflects the demands of the marketplace. Much more important, they argue, has been the changing economics of radio station ownership. The keys to the current situation, in their view, have been the removal a decade ago of the national limit on the number of stations a company could own, which enabled a few large, conservative-oriented companies to dominate the field, and the easing of license renewal requirements that had enabled the FCC to determine whether broadcasters were upholding their public interest responsibilities.
What one makes of what the researchers call the “structural imbalance of political talk radio” is likely to depend on where one stands politically. But the data compiled for this report provide a much stronger empirical base for considerations of this volatile set of issues. These data do, as critics have noted, need to be supplemented by data on the content of other sources of political commentary, which, one hopes, may soon be forthcoming — this time perhaps in a report undertaken by a conservative think tank.
For a copy of the full report, click here.
Comments
The economics of radio station ownership require putting programs on that people listen to. Is there any suggestion that low rated conservative programs are being carried over liberal talk radio that would make more money for the stations? Of course not, as was shown by the Air America debacle. Nor is there any context: talk radio leans right but no more so than TV news and major newspapers lean left. The underlying issue here is the same one with liberal hatred of Fox News: the problem isn’t that it’s biased, it’s that it’s biased the wrong way.
Posted by: Robert L. | February 16, 2008 03:26 PM
I’m interested in your assertion that “talk radio leans right but no more so than TV news and major newspapers lean left.” I hope that, rather than just tossing it out there as a fait accompli, you’ll provide something that might be regarded as reliable evidence.
As for your point about the conservative dominance of talk radio being driven by “market” considerations, that sounds pretty much right to me — but the report that I cited in my post explicitly rejects that interpretation. Would you like to confront their interpretation more directly?
Finally, I tend to doubt your last assertion — that the problem with Fox isn’t bias per se, but conservative bias. Or is it really the case that all the conservative moaning about the biased media isn’t really about media bias, but about the perception that the bias is toward them rather than us?
Posted by: Lee Sigelman | February 16, 2008 03:37 PM
Right wing dirty tricksters disabled the Fairness Doctrine and then installed a 24/7 dirty disinformation operation on the entire AM talk radio band nationwide, directly leading to a takeover and ruin of the Federal Government.
In fact the presitigious Annenberg School of Communication at Penn (funded by the conservative TV Guide fortune) studied talk radio for 12 of the 15 year coup and found that 50 million listeners had been duped with utter “false certainty,” swinging the past 5 of 6 elections.
Even when the Dems got a window back into power over the war, they have done NOTHING to pressure ownership to return balance to the AM radio dial. No hearings featuring Kathleen Hall Jameson of Annenberg who has waited to testify for 15 years. In fact, no pressure whatsoever on ownership, who showed their amazed contempt by rolling out ratings clunker Dennis Miller in 100 markets while ignoring ratings winner Ed Schultz. Their utter witlessness on this issue proves the Dems are chumps who will soon be steamrolled again by a dirty disinformation juggernaut occurring brazenly on PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves.
You cannot compete in a dumbed down society with what may be the greatest disinfo operation in history, one that would make Goebbels blush.
Posted by: gregrocker | February 16, 2008 04:48 PM
If consumers were not interested in the ideas expressed by talk radio, they would not listen.
Second, an abundance of research has been done to show the liberal bias of most mainstream news outlets. These findings are also collaborated by numerous public opinion surveys.
Regulating talk radio is simply an attack on free speech. It is wrong and should not be accepted.
Posted by: bee | February 16, 2008 05:08 PM
Bee, I’m sorry but I’d like to see the citations for the volumes of studies showing the left-wing bias of the media. Its not my field of study, but most of what I have read on this topic suggests that the number one bias of mainstream media is negativity.
Moreover, public opinion surveys are not evidence of media bias one way or another. At best its evidence of what people perceive, but that can be affected by a lot more things than the objective content of the news media.
Posted by: Scott McClurg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.themonkeycage.org/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 16, 2008 10:47 PM
Interesting post.
In a related note, Pew Research reported recently the limited impact of conservative talk this election season:
“Barely a quarter of Americans (27%) are aware that many conservative talk radio hosts are opposing John McCain’s campaign for president. Another 7% mistakenly believe hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity support McCain’s candidacy.
Even among Republicans, awareness of the arguments against McCain is limited. Only 31% know about the opposition to McCain on talk radio. Even among Republicans who are following the campaign “very closely” only 42% know that these hosts disapprove of McCain.”
The GOP’s Malkin-tents and Rush-bots aren’t quite as omnipotent as they think.
Posted by: Americaneocon | February 17, 2008 08:02 AM
Staying out of the normative debate above, it would seem that the impact of conservative political talk radio is less important in terms of any persuasive influence on liberals or moderates, but rather its impact on campaign-season learning among conservatives. In other words, Barack Obama may have less to worry about from Rush Limbaugh than does John McCain.
Contrary to the Pew study cited above, the Annenberg Public Policy Center has a (relatively) new research brief from NAES 2008 data suggesting that such an effect is present, finding that Limbaugh listeners had a consistently more negative view of McCain than non-listening conservatives: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Releases/NAES%202008/NAES2008rushreleaseFINAL.pdf
I for one find this study more persuasive than the Pew results because the APPC center has enough respondents to measure attitudes amongst actual Limbaugh listeners over time as opposed to simply comparing attitudes and knowledge about talking radio host endorsements in the entirety of a National sample. Of course, the normal caveats about selective exposure apply.
Also of potential interest to “Cage” readers on this topic is the earlier study of political talk radio done by the APPC in the mid 1990s, arguably an era of greater political talk radio listenership and importance: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/Political_Talk_Radio/1996_03_political_talk_radio_rpt.PDF
Posted by: Kevin | February 17, 2008 10:03 AM
The numbers are interesting. The why question is particularly interesting to me.
Suppose, for example, it’s just market-driven. WHY does the market favor conservative talk radio? And, if it does, why is not similar favoritism for print media? I’m not saying market conditions don’t play a role. My question is: if they play a role, WHY do they play a role in this way?
Or, take the oppposite tack: the ownership angle. Major corporations also own print and other forms of broadcast media. Why would it be different there?
In short, I think that no matter where you sit ideologically, it’s a very interesting question: WHY is the world like this? And the dominant explanations (from the right or the left) seem weak to me, because they don’t explain the VARIANCE.
Posted by: Matt Jarvis | February 18, 2008 02:37 PM