[BC] could someone explain this to me?

[Fred Gleason]

On Friday 27 May 2005 18:00, Rich Wood wrote:

> The real difference is
> that there's only a few "liberal" programming sources, so balance between
> liberal and conservative isn't possible. 

Ahem!  What about:
	ABC
	CBS (Dan may be gone, but the legacy lives on)
	NBC
	CNN
	The Associated Press
	The Washington Post
	The New York Times
	Many, MANY more...

Mind you, I find nothing wrong with this.  All of the above are private 
organizations, and as such are entitled to their point of view.  But please, 
don't talk about 'lack of balance'.  The whole reason conservative talk radio 
has blossomed the way it has was precisely to *restore* the balance.	

I say 'restore' because, if you look at the history of American journalism, 
blatant partisanship originally was very much the norm.  Starting in the 
early 1820s (roughly corresponding with the rise of the Democratic Party 
under Andrew Jackson) every major city had it's 'Democratic' and 
'Whig' (after 1860 'Republican') papers.  These papers were far from reticent 
about making their opinions known on the issues of the day, and typically 
slanted their news reporting accordingly.

This changed around the time of World War II.  Ironically, a large factor in 
killing the tradition was the rise of broadcasting, particularly television.  
The competition from this new technology made sustaining more than one daily 
paper uneconomic in all but the very largest cities.  And, since broadcasting 
was/is supposed to be licensed 'in the public interest' (remember the 
'fairness doctrine'?), a new (and IMO mostly unworkable) new ethic of 
'unbiased' reporting evolved.  However, man being the political animal that 
he is, the new ethic came mostly to serve as cover for pushing increasingly 
leftist agendas.

And now conservative talk radio has restored the balance.  I for one would 
much rather have news sources whose ideological agenda is clear and 
recognized from the get-go, rather than having to deal with some amorphous 
concept of 'unbiased reporting' that is impossible to achieve while leaving 
me guessing as to the what the real agenda is.  People are quite capable of 
separating the wheat from the chaff when they know where the plant came from.


> If PBS is any  
> indication, we'll have lots and lots of Yanni-type concerts replacing 
> public affairs. William F. Buckley was a little too early.

On the contrary, your goal is *much* too modest.  Ideally, we'll have *no* 
PBS, and no CPB either.  I think that the money thus saved would be much 
better utilized in the hands of it's proper owners (that's you and me, BTW -- 
the taxpayers).  I know that the Christian broadcasting community for one has 
a large and robust segment of non-commercial broadcasters that exist entirely 
on the basis of voluntary public support -- no handouts from Uncle Sugar 
here!  I see no reason why everyone else should not be subject to the same 
standard.  Lest I come across sounding like a complete Philistine, I do love 
the opera (and am most grateful to Texaco, who has been sponsoring it 
continuously for more than sixty years now).  If these programs really do 
fullfill a widespread public need, then finding the necessary funding in the 
private sector should not be a problem.

Ok, history class is dismissed.  Whew!  :)

Cheers!


|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. | Director of Broadcast Software Development  |
|                           |             Salem Radio Labs                |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| True leadership is the art of changing a group from what it is to what  |
| it ought to be.                                                         |
|                                      -- Virginia Allan                  |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|