Conservatives love to say that they are in the market place of ideas. But how can it be a market or a free market, if there is no choice? They say progressive radio is doesn't sell, but even streaming on the web (DC station because we lost our station in Boston) I've noticed a whole bunch of commercials; a whole range of local commercials we never heard in Boston . "Beecause we know progressives in Boston and our "metro area," don't eat, don't go grocery or car shopping, don't go to shows( like monster truck rallies), don't shop for prom wear or any clothes for that matter, don't take our family to fun places. . . etc.
In reality conservatives don't like a real open/free market, because if they did they would be meeting the talk radio needs of half the nation. They don't want to have a real competition - and they need to be challenged every time they spout the marketplace of ideas and
that progressive radio doesn't sell. They are saying, by default, that they can only win in that marketplace when the cards are all stacked in their favor. (NPR isn't a commerical radio network and cannot be used to compare commerical to commerical radio)I'm fired up, I am tired of watching progressive radio stations fall. If it is truly an ownership issue and radio stations are expensive to buy we need to have progressives donating to the cause of buying station and progressives with deep pockets helping to buy stations.
Progressive talk was a large part of the reason for the 2006 Democratic talk over of the house and senate. And conservative power brokers know it. The loss of more and more progressive stations also confirms this - without progressive talk we may loose the gains we have gotten and 2008.
In Boston we can't hear Kennedy's wonderful speeches on the Senate floor, Ohio can't hear Sherrod Brown. If the average joe can't hear our message, if the Republican's get to define who and what we are on their unchallenged talk radio stations, how do we truly compete? How do we get our message out? How do we keep our gains and get more?
This liberal media bias is a specious argument. Back in the day when it was only newspapers many large communities had two newspapers, one newspaper was known to be conservative and one was liberal. Everyone accepted that. If you wanted both sides, you read both newspapers. Now many places have lost one of their newspapers, once liberal newspapers like the LA Times are owned and controlled by conservatives and their bias is there.
We don't have radio balance. Some how we've allowed the conservatives to make a liberal bias in the media a bad thing instead of what it was when we had choice in media (two newspapers, etc.) a normal accepted thing BECAUSE both the conservative and liberal bias were represented in the choice of newspaper/media.
And if progressive radio can't sell, why are three (3) progressive talkers (Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, and Randi Rhodes) listed in the top 15 in Talkers magazine. That's even more impressive when you realize that they are on less radio stations than the other 12 are.
Examples of what was two newspaper ideology representation:
Denver Post (used to be considered Liberal) and the Rocky Mountain News (conservative)
Boston Globe (liberal) and the Boston Herald (conservative)
NY Times (liberal) and the NY Post (conservative)
etc.
(Donate to Non-Stop Radio where ever you are to keep us on in every city in the nation)
