RWers' argument that "conservative" radio is only reflecting what the "consumer" wants

[zbdent]

reminds me of the Wendy's commercials of the eighties ...

The one it really reminds me of, which I can't find on the internets, is where you have a "car buyer" in a Soviet car showroom. He wants to buy a car. He is shown two cars. They are identical. The salesman tells the buyer the names of the cars (which show the only thing different about the cars is the name).

The commercial that I can find, which also reflects the RW talking point that radio is only giving the listeners what they want, is the large Soviet woman in the fashion show, showing the same outfit ... "and now ... DAYWEAR!" ... "Evening Wear" (same outfit, carrying a flashlight) ... "Swim Wear!!!" (same outfit, carrying a beach ball) ...

if the "market" only presents pretty much the exact same thing, then how is that reflecting what the consumer wants?

[islandmkl]

1. 'conservative' radio's popularity/ratings domination reveals more about what is offered...

than what consumers might choose...

the allowance of conglomeration mega-station holdings have established a stranglehold by RW media corps...

the Fairness Doctrine is not the answer...breaking up the massive media conglomerates is...

[Lasher]

2. There's no reason why we couldn't have both.

Fairness Doctrine and media divestiture, that is. Each has its merits but if I had to choose one I would pick splitup of the media oligopoly.

[Atman]

3. The trouble is, information has become a consumer product like never before

We SELL air time, by way of commercials. We sell the sides of busses, blimps and tall buildings to promote media viewpoints. Corporate viewpoints, mean to return profits to shareholders. Now, TV stations have pretty much always been that way.

But back when there were broadcast rules about things more serious than wardrobe failures and potty mouth, news shows were real NEWS shows, with entirely separate budgets from the entertainment shows. In the late seventies, evening news shows starting jazzing up their reports with "magazine" segments. "PM Magazine," "Evening Magazine," all these "magazines" ironically enough on broadcast television. They were patterned off the success of CBSs "60 Minutes," and became really, really popular. And cheap to produce.

They grew like crazy during the eighties, and we seem them linger today. But NEWS didn't survive. News divisions were melded with entertainment divisions, and were expected to actually make money for their consolidation-happy corporate masters. Another irony is that now, more than ever, people really do have a choice about where they get their information. Unfortunately for the masses, most of them only receive the cable television version of pure propaganda bullshit. Those willing to spend the time will always be able to get to the truth via the internet tubes.

It's the "elites and opiners" Bush sneared about. Elites and opiners aren't content to just accept the word of a proven liar over and over again. Fool me once, won't get fooled again. And again. And again. We realize that anyone broadcasting, blogging, printing, broadsiding, windshield canvassing, cable newsing, has a motivation for doing so. Large corporate entities have a responsibility to their shareholders first, above all else. The board's role is to determine what type of information gives them the best return on their dollar. Oh, and don't forget the wholly owned subsidiaries who might be in, say, the defense industry, perhaps? Can't hurt those shareholders, either.

You just gotta be aware of where the "news" is coming from and be able to weigh the source in terms of motivation, agenda, etc. Sadly, the people with the most money almost always "win" in our society. Even if "winning" means total failure and a $700,000,000,000 bailout. But make no mistake, the money always seems to win, and the news is no different. Corporate news owns the major distribution networks of information just as Wal Mart has a nationwide stranglehold on the distribution of melamine-laden Chinese Cheesy Poofs sold in 7 lb bags.

The consumer gets to decide, ultimately. Is it easier for me and does it provide a sufficient amount of pleasure, for me to turn on the big Wal Mart flat panel tv and watch the "E! Magazine" marathon, or should I go find a bunch of newspapers and You Tube videos and try to figure out what's what?

Idiocracy. Ow, my balls.

.

[rurallib]

4. depends on how you define 'consumer'

if they mean the guy that owns the station they are right.
Should an owner have a right to play what he or she wants on 'their' station? Or should the owner try to play to their consumer base?
I fall into the group that believes that airwaves are a public trust. If an owner fails to serve the public, there should be a way to yank their license.

[munyabuhoro]

5. i think it should be true