Serious question - has anyone ever received an answer to why Republics dominate on news talk spots?

[NRaleighLiberal]

I know Media Matters and TPM have covered it. But is there a legitimate reason? If it that they are more more aggressive at approaching the networks? Are Democrats less aggressive? Since the "there is a Republic administration" excuse no longer holds..what is it?

Do the networks think that low intellect level of the right resonates more with average America?

I know many of us have emailed, called, written letters - but has anyone ever gotten a logical reason from the media? Or any response at all?

[AndrewP]

1. TV is owned by corporations who want the right wing spin put out there

[arcadian]

15. Exactly, corporations don't operate with the consent of consumers.

They manufacture a consent by making it appear that most consumers are right-wing asshats.

[NOW tense]

2. They have time to

They are not actively trying to fix our country.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Drudge rules their world.

[mod mom]

4. Telecom Act of '96 gave power to few entitites that have a Republican bias.

[ThomWV]

5. Democratic notions of fairness are not easily boiled down into TV-sized soundbites

Democratic idea do not fit with soundbites, Republican ones do.

[NJmaverick]

6. Right now I suspect the reason is that the Democrats are busy trying to fix the mess the GOP left

while the GOP has nothing to do but lie and complain

[stillcool]

7. It's in their best interests..

they report what they want you to know.

[TygrBright]

8. Well, see, it's all contained in the old (and probably apocyphal) story:

About the grizzled old City Desk Editor welcoming the eager-eyed kid on his promotion from copy boy to cub reporter: "Kid... Do you know what a sex pervert does? SELLS NEWSPAPERS!"

Democrats persist (with a few notable exceptions, thanks, Blago & Co.) in doing all this dull, boring, reality-based shit and including kiss-of-death stuff like FACTS in their press releases and interviews and stuff. Audiences see that stuff and since it would require them to actually THINK to process the information, they flip the channel, turn the page, click on past, whatever.

Whereas, GOPpies can be relied upon to issue Stern Warnings and mong fear and make wildly absurd statements and rush around in circles (metaphorically AND literally) yelling "Look!! LOOK!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!! AIIIIIEEEEEEEEE!!!!" and so people don't change the channel, turn the page, click on past, whatever.

It's all about eyeballs. The media requires eyeballs to sell advertising and make a profit. You get eyeballs with crazy people hyperventilating about ALL THE AWFUL STUFF THAT'S HAPPENING/GONNA HAPPEN!!! but not with comparatively sane people talking about facts and analyzing information using basic logic and reason.

It's that simple.

helpfully,
Bright

[Are_grits_groceries]

9. Here's a thread that gives some facts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4934508&mesg_id=4934508

[Blue_Tires]

10. back in the late 90s, the news stations were all self-conscious about the

"MAINSTREAM LIBRUL BUYIST MEDIA!!!!11" label that talk radio had slapped them with for so many years that they made a huge tidal-wave correction in the other direction...then Fox News was born, and even in spite of the cheesy sets, screen graphics and poor overall quality the channel was an unbridled success...go back and look at the stories from 2000 or 2001 when CNN was reeling and scrambling to find some liberal-hating wackos to keep their "We're unbiased and LOVE America" rep intact...

[depakid]

11. Same reason new artists can't get airplay anywhere except college radio

and yet everywhere you go in the states you'll find generic Christian radio.

[JHB]

12. Because that's the way they've always done it...

From nearly 20 years ago...

-----------------------
Extra! July/August 1990

TV's Imposters
Television's Political Spectrum

By Jeff Cohen


The power to define the political spectrum is an awesome one -- determining who gets to speak and who gets censored, which positions gain currency and which go unheard. On television, this power is largely in conservative hands. Accordingly, those who hold daily or weekly positions as political analysts on television run from right to center; the most prominent talking heads are all white males. The public is not even hearing policy recommendations from a significant segment of the body politic.

The American left is virtually unspoken for by America's talking headmen. While leading right-wing and centrist pundits could be picked out of a lineup by any politically inclined citizen who owns a TV set, the same cannot be said about leading progressive advocates -- many of whom are women and people of color.
****
Those who hold down television's left wing don't deny that TV's spectrum has a conservative slant. On a Crossfire episode (1/23/90), "left" host Michael Kinsley conceded: "I may be a liberal but there is no way...that I'm as far left as Pat Buchanan is right. There's no way Mark Shields is as left as you are right. There's no way Al Hunt is as far left as Bob Novak is right. These shows are biased from the conservative way."

Conservative activists would feel voiceless if the right was represented on TV talk shows by moderate Republicans sympathetic to the likes of Lowell Weicker or Robert Packwood. Which is why progressive activists -- whether from peace, ecology, women's rights, labor, civil rights, gay rights or other movements -- feel unrepresented on TV by folks like Kinsley, Shields and Hunt.

It highlights another difference between TV's right and TV's left: The Patrick Buchanans and Robert Novaks are on the air trying to win viewers to the conservative movement. Does anyone believe that Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal is trying to win recruits for the left? Or that Mark Shields is? Biographical material provided by Shields' office emphatically denies any identification with the left: "Mark Shields is free of any political tilt."
****
The Red Scare of the 1950s gave birth to a fast-rising right-wing movement, the John Birch Society. Its rise was aborted when the society's leader, Robert Welch, made a statement that was deemed so outrageous by the media establishment as to place the Birchers beyond the pale of respectable discourse: Welch called President Dwight Eisenhower a "Communist dupe."

In December 1987 Howard Phillips, the head of the Conservative Caucus, made a statement that topped Welch's for absurdity: Ronald Reagan had become a "useful idiot for Kremlin propaganda." But instead of ridiculing or repudiating him, the media rewarded Phillips with regular access to America's biggest news outlets, including the opinion page of the New York Times (12/11/87).
---------------------
Full article at
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1566

Check out the FAIR archives for more items on this and related subjects since the mid-80's (good source for pre-Web coverage).
http://www.fair.org/

[Belial]

13. Money.. thats what it all comes down to..

Simple enough.. Talk radio is a form of entertainment. Each station buys programming from other stations that produce it. The stations have reps that sale advertising on a local level and each radio show has spots that are available for national and local advertisements. The stations rely on demographic data as for targeting the advertising spots. Demographic data is compiled locally and nationally through a series of surveys, listener polls, etc. This data consists of age, spending habits, income, etc.

Regardless of opinions on here.. those shows have large audiences that spend money. Even if it is a minority of opinions that are being expressed on there, it is a money maker.

[IDemo]

14. Anger sells better than reasoned discourse

Especially when your target audience is "low information" (unintelligent) voters.