[BC] equal time controversy

[Rich Wood]

  ------ At 12:57 AM 6/5/2012, Donna Halper wrote: -------

>But my question was:  should political talk shows try to let both sides
>be heard, or should they only cover the side they happen to support
>personally?  As a former consultant (28 years, for those who don't know
>me), I always encouraged talk show hosts to interview all the major
>candidates -- a good interviewer should be able to elicit interesting
>information, whether it's a candidate they support or a candidate they
>oppose.

By and large Talk shows no longer do interviews beyond their
political leanings. I part company with those who believe that Talk
Show Hosts significantly influence politics at the voter level. Even
Limbaugh wouldn't be a factor if other media didn't give him a
platform well beyond his own. At his ratings peak he had a 4 rating
(percentage of the population listening). 96% don't listen. Even the
Huffington Post gives him credibility by "exposing" him. The
influence Talk people have is more direct. Politicians who don't
understand the media pay undo attention and assume Limbaugh and his
imitators have far more influence with voters than actually do.

Radio interviews aren't learning opportunities. FOX and MSNBC for TV
simply preach to their own choirs. In today's media objectivity is
weakness. I doubt any radio broadcaster believes that a Charlie Rose
type interview show would get ratings. Too tame and full of facts.
Without reinstating the Fairness Doctrine the FCC can't legally
require a balanced discussion.

Rich

Rich