Media Regulation

Why do conservatives do better on the radio than liberals, and what can be done about it? That’s the question addressed in a study released today on talk radio by two left-leaning policy groups, the Center for American Progress and Free Press. The conclusion: conservative success in radio is due to the ownership structure of radio, and Washington can fix the problem through greater controls on radio ownership.

The conclusion is no doubt a comforting one to left-of-center radio programmers. No one, after all, likes to be told they are unpopular. Yet, it is as wrong as it is dangerous. None of the number-crunching in the CAP/Free Press study contradicts the essential fact that conservative talk radio is more successful because it is more popular. More people listen to it, so radio stations provide more of it. And that’s not a problem that Washington can – or should – “fix.”

The CAP/Free Press study is based first on one unsurprising finding: there’s a lot more conservative radio on the air than liberal radio. Of the political talk radio programming in the top ten markets, for instance, the study found 76 percent is conservative, and 24 percent is liberal. That percentage varies quite a bit by market – some markets were overwhelmingly conservative, while others – such as Chicago and New York – were split almost evenly between left and right.

The $64,000 question is why conservatives are doing better. To their credit, the authors dismiss the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine as the root cause, saying correctly that the “Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues.” (What they don’t mention, however, is that the doctrine was very successful at discouraging such discussion.)

Instead, CAP and Free Press point to the ownership structure of radio. Radio stations owned by women or minorities, and those owned locally, they conclude, have less conservative programming than those that are not. Twenty-eight percent of minority-owned stations, for instance, air conservative talk shows, compared to just over 50 percent of non-minority owned stations. Their conclusion: Washington should strictly enforce broadcast ownership rules, combined with strict “public interest” requirements, to solve the “problem” of conservative radio predominance.

Continue reading →

Google’s public policy shop today officially joined the blogosphere, joining Cisco (February 4, 2005), Global Crossing (November 7, 2005), and Verizon Communications (October 2, 2006), each of which already have corporate policy blogs. The maiden post, by Andrew McLaughlin, Google’s director of public policy and government affairs, promises “public policy advocacy in a Googley way.” It’s one in which users will “be part of the effort” to help “refine and improve” the company’s policy positions. The blog already has 12 posts, done during the company’s internal test. The most recent – which I suspect provided the occasion to officially launch the blog – is a short summary of the official Google position on network neutrality.

Continue reading →

Broadcasters have long had one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington. But it now seems that the National Association of Broadcasters has met its match — an equally powerful outfit known as the National Association of Broadcasters. Yes, that’s right — NAB, under new president David Rehr, has been shooting quite effective bullets recently at itself.

The battle was triggered by the proposed merger between XM and Sirius Satellite Radio. NAB has gone on the warpath against the merger, arguing that it would create a monopoly. Of course, to argue that, it has to argue that broadcast radio doesn’t compete with satellite radio. That argument, however, was rebutted by NAB’s David Rehr (yes, the same one), who just last year gave a stirring speech about broadcast radio’s satellite competitors, declaring:

In 2006 we have satellite and Internet radio. And barely a day passes without the introduction of a new competing device or service. And we have news for our competitors: “We will beat you — as we have beaten those change agents in the past.”

Continue reading →

Ever since the American Spectator reported a few weeks ago that the House leadership would “aggressively pursue” reinstatement of the FCC’s old Fairness Doctrine, there’s been lively speculation as to whether the regulation will really be brought back to life. Despite much discussion, Dem leaders have — pardon the pun — maintained complete radio silence.

So how to determine the likelihood of this actually happening? Through markets of course. Yesterday, the online “prediction market” InTrade.com opened a market on the question of whether the fairness doctrine would be brought back by the end of this year. Essentially the system works like a stock market, with investors buying and selling future contracts on the event, which will pay a set sum if the event occurs.

So far there haven’t been any contracts completed — the market is just one day old. But bids so far have ranged from 10 to 20 or so (translating into a 10-20 percent chance of regulation.

That seems high to me – I don’t think reinstatement is that likely for 2007 (2007 is another story). But I’m not sure I’m willing to bet on that.

With the release last month of its report on Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children, the FCC teed up the issue of regulating televised violence and tossed it over to Congress with a recommendation that lawmakers go ahead and swing for the fences. And Congress appears ready to oblige, although not necessarily in the way some at the FCC had originally envisioned.

You will recall that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin used the FCC’s violence report as another opportunity to engage in his monomaniacal, Moby Dick-like quest to impose a la carte regulation on cable and satellite operators. Martin argued that “Requiring cable and satellite television providers to offer programming in a more a la carte manner would be a more content neutral means for Congress to regulate violent programming and therefore would raise fewer constitutional issues.” But it doesn’t appear that the chairman is going to get his whale this time around.

Continue reading →

WASHINGTON, May 24, 2007 – The National Association of Broadcasters has enlisted the recently re-minted lobbying firm of Bluewater Strategies in its quest to combat the proposed merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio.

In a Wednesday filing at the Senate Office of Public Records, lobbyists Tim Kurth, Andrew Lundquist and George Nethercutt, former Republican representative from Washington, said they would represent the NAB on the merger and other issues.

Continue reading →

Last week, Nancy Pelosi reportedly put the Fairness Doctrine in play in Congress — stating that the House leadership would aggressively pursue its restoration. At this point it’s unclear how serious she is about it — will there be a real effort to reimpose this relic of the 1940s, or is this just a bone for the Rupert-and-Rush-Need-to-Be-Stopped Left?

One thing is clear — serious or not, its a bad idea. I explain why is this just-released Heritage paper.

The American Spectator reported yesterday that House leaders have decided to “aggressively pursue” reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine this year. In January, Rep. Dennis Kucinich raised a stir by saying he would pursue the issue, but — while always entertaining — the far-left Kucinich doesn’t always speak for his party’s leadership. The Spectator report indicates that that leadership is now behind the effort in a big way.

The report also includes some mind-bogglingly frank statements by a House staffers on the reasons for the effort. “Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it,” a “senior advisor to Pelosi” is quoted as saying. A Government Reform committee staffer is then quoted as saying: “Salem [Broadcasting Co.] is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can’t shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him.”

The quotes are amazingly reminiscent of statements by Richard Nixon and his staff, who routinely used the Fairness Doctrine to cow opponents in the media. The surprising thing, though, isn’t the sentiment — most everyone after all knows the political dimension of this issue — but the fact that staffers would let themselves be so quoted. The statements sound (suspiciously) more lilke GOP talking points on the issue than anything a halfway experienced staffer would let himself utter.

If these quotes are accurate, however, those of us on the anti-regulation side may as well put our pens away now. We couldn’t possibly make a better case against this regulation than those staffers have.

The question then would be: will they get equal time to rebut their own arguments?


Tech Policy Weekly from the Technology Liberation Front is a weekly podcast about technology policy from TLF’s learned band of contributors. The shows’s panelists this week are Jerry Brito, Jim Harper, Tim Lee, Adam Thierer, and Peter Suderman of the National Review Online. Topics include,

  • new legislative proposals to regulate violence in video games
  • the David and Goliath struggle between the Library of Congress and WashingtonWatch.com
  • Rupert Murdoch’s surprise bid for ownership of the Wall Street Journal

There are several ways to listen to the TLF Podcast. You can press play on the player below to listen right now, or download the MP3 file. You can also subscribe to the podcast by clicking on the button for your preferred service. And do us a favor, Digg this podcast!

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Subscribe to Tech Policy Weekly from TLF on Odeo.com Subscribe to Tech Policy Weekly from TLF in iTunes Add to Pageflakes Subscribe in Bloglines

What is the position of the United States government on a proposed treaty, currently before the World Intellectual Property Organization, that would create a copyright-style protection for television broadcasts?

That is the key question that observers want answers for at the public roundtable discussion that will be held today, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., at the Copyright Office in the Library of Congress. The proposed treaty has been rife with controversy from the beginning. One reason is that it is being promoted as an update to the 1961 Treaty of Rome, which the U.S. never ratified.

During negotiations last year at WIPO in Geneva, the U.S. was the most significant government to promote extending the broadcaster treaty to cover webcasters. But the rest of the world balked at that. Failing that modification, the U.S. expressed dissatisfaction with the end-result.

In a column on the subject last September, I quoted PTO officials as follows:

“The U.S. does not believe that [the current treaty] provides a proper basis for going to a diplomatic conference, and intervened to say as much,” PTO spokeswoman Brigid Quinn said September 15. “The U.S. has always envisioned this treaty as one to provide the necessary protections for broadcast signals in the digital age.” As a result, she said, “there is no consensus and alternatives on at least half of the issues.”