Schumer Knows Porn When He Hears It
March 18th, 2009 Gumlegs Posted in Commentary, News, Politics | Comments Off
Senator Charles Shumer (D-NY), has never been known as an exemplar of logical thinking. Nevertheless, as Chairman of the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, he must be taken seriously. The partial transcript below is of a November 2008 Schumer interview aired on Fox television. We address this now because the issue is not going away.
CS: [T]here are … the radio air, it’s not that this is like printing a broadside. You would never say anyone who wanted to hire a printing press or go on a computer has to have any view. Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not. Particularly on television and radio. There are always …
(Crosstalk)
… you gotta let me finish.
Host: I will, but many fear the legislative … vi … from the hill …
CS: Okay.
Host: … and they strongly disagree with that. I’ll give you the last word.
CS: The very same people who don’t want the fairness doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. I am for that. I think pornography should be limited. But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you’re allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.
All of Schumer’s points fail. Some fail on multiple levels. If Senator Schumer is trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records for pointless speech, he’s made a good start but he should be warned … Congress has 534 other members.
Schumer, like other critics of talk radio, speak as if the medium existed in a vacuum. We were considering a joke about radio once existing in a vacuum tube, but that would take too long to explain to anyone younger than forty-five. For Schumer’s point to make sense, the following can’t be considered sources of news or opinion: ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, or the Boston Globe.
Curiously, though, there is already a remedy to the “imbalance” on radio. It’s NPR, or it would be the remedy if anyone listened to it. Because NPR’s left-wing slant has so few listeners it’s unsustainable without government subsidies, Schumer would silence disgreement. Another Senator from New York once said, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, ‘We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.’” We wonder what became of her.
Schumer rejects government controlling, “… anyone who wanted to hire a printing press,” but we’re suspicious of this uncharacteristic diffidence. His quaint reliance here on the exact wording of the Constitution is at odds with the philosophy of his party. Doesn’t the good Senator see any penumbra emanating from the first amendment … or is it emanations penumbrating? We can’t remember.
If Schumer really believes opposing political views amount to pornography, he’s more troubled than previously suspected. Schumer has as much as admitted that he is incapable of distinguishing between the work of Rush Limbaugh and Larry Flynt. But Schumer’s proposed remedy, the fairness doctrine, is fatuous; does he believe a broadcast of “Debbie Does Dallas” could be “balanced” by Mickey Mouse cartoons?
Although Schumer’s statement purports to be even-handed, it really isn’t. Schumer would tell private businesses how they should operate because he doesn’t like their product. We sincerely hope that paint manufacturers are meeting Senator Schumer’s expectations regarding the visible light spectrum. Is the Senator aware that that spectrum is much more limited than the broadcast spectrum? Are paint manufacturers covering all shades in an unbiased fashion? Could certain shades be under-represented? Will Congress require, in the interests of “fairness,” the manufacturing of paint colors no one wants to buy?
In 1927, the FRC (now the FCC), began regulating radio with good reason – stations were broadcasting without regard for who else was on a given frequency, or how much interference there was among competing signals. The FRC’s job was to bring some order to the airwaves, insuring that broadcasters would be heard. It’s a stretch to go from that to “what may be heard,” but Congress and its regulatory progeny are more limber than a double-jointed contortionist on Demerol.
The scarcity justification about “the public airwaves” is ridiculous anyway. Newspapers currently number fewer than 1,500 dailies and the number is dropping. Radio stations number over 13,000. If Congress needed to regulate due to scarcity, which of the two industries should be under its thumb?
While we sleep secure in his assurance that the Senator doesn’t have the internet in his sights today, we have a sneaking suspicion that he’s merely biding his time. Sooner or later someone will write a paper that reveals the shocking truth that politically conservative websites are grotesquely one-sided in their views. Something Will Have To Be Done.
Indeed, the reason Something Will Have To Be Done about radio may be a 2007 paper titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” It is artfully constructed to squeeze the maximum horror out of the least substance, and we stand in frank admiration of the creativity the authors have shown in their work.
Here are some alarming facts from the report.
Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.
Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.
We’ve already noted that there are over 13,000 radio stations in the U.S., a fact easily found on the internet. Arbitron puts the number at 13,838 as of 2004. You get the idea.
But use the low number. That means of 13,000 radio stations in the country, an overwhelming 257 of them owned by the top five station owners, air conservative talk. Rounding up, that’s 2% of all stations. No wonder Senator Schumer’s message isn’t getting out.
Their second bullet point is a restatement of the facts in the first, but they use bigger numbers.
While the temptation to infer something nefarious in the distribution of conservative to progressive talk (point three), might it not be explained by simple demographics? Is it possible the broadcasters are airing what the listeners want?
The authors also fret, “Stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.” That’s a very interesting group. Do women who own stations have the same programming concerns as Hispanics who own stations? Few, if any, Spanish-language stations carry Limbaugh or Hannity. Why, then, would they be lumped in with women? Are “local owners” included because they’re in markets already covered by the nearest 50,000 watt clear channel carrying Limbaugh’s show? Rush’s syndicate would be remiss if it didn’t license his show to the station willing to pay the most to carry it.
The report smears five radio networks, but the case makes no sense. They reveal that talk on CBS radio stations is conservative an astonishing 74% of the time. Clear Channel is at 86%. And it gets worse – at Citadel, Salem, and Cumulus, talk is 100% conservative!
Oh, dear. The trick is that CBS radio is not like CBS TV – it carries programming available elsewhere, as does Clear Channel! This counting is, “one for you, one for me, two for you, and one-two for me.” The report also counts only political talk, and omits everything else in the vast range of entertainment broadcast by the companies it attempts to tar.
But what does Clear Channel really carry? I found this on their website:
Radio Division Facts:
• Operates over 800 radio stations reaching more than 110 million listeners every week across all 50 states.
• Serves approximately 300 U.S. markets, including 89 of the top 100 markets.
• Reaches 45% of all people ages 18-49 in the U.S. on daily basis.
• Programming decisions are based on local research into the needs of communities, broadcasting in approxi- mately 50 listening formats across the U.S.
• Represents approximately 9% of all radio stations (including non-profit).
[Bolding mine]. Clear Channel’s monolith of 9% of all radio stations is fragmented into fifty different formats!
And what of those other miscreants, Citadel, Salem, and Cumulus?
CITADEL: KIPR in Little Rock describes itself as “an urban mainstream radio station with a target demographic of 18 to 34 year-old Adults.” Its format is “hip-hop.” It’s probably conservative hip-hop. Citadel owns two stations in L.A., one of which is the dreaded KABC. The other is KLOS, which presently contents itself with classic rock. KLOS broadcasts no conservative talk – if it did, Citadel would be competing with itself. Citadel’s Atlanta outlets are WHKX, a country station, and WYAY, an oldies station.
CUMULUS: While all the talk on Cumulus stations may be conservative, they list their formats as Country, Contemporary Hits, Classic Rock, Alternative Rock, Urban Contemporary, Top 40, Oldies, Sports, Christian, and Easy Listening, among others.
SALEM: Self-described as “Christian Radio.” This may be an even greater offense than being conservative. We’ll have to wait for the FCC ruling on this. Where are Salem’s Wiccan-themed programs?
They all air “conservative talk”! That it’s a small percentage of their overall content is meaningless! Destroy them!
Some other factors missing in the “Structural Imbalance” report: Markets have more than one radio station, indeed, most have several. If Rush Limbaugh is carried on one station, he’s not on the others. Market realities force … oh, what is the word … alternatives! Even discounting the “turn off the set” option, there is always an alternative on radio. What the leftists are really upset about is that other points of view are aired at all.
The identity politics in the report mesh with the Democrat party line. Senator Durbin (D, IL) asserts that his language in an unrelated bill about Washington, DC is about diversity. “No one is suggesting that the law for the FCC says that you can give this license to a Republican and this one to a Democrat and this one to a liberal and this one to a conservative,” he said. “When we talk about diversity in media ownership, it relates primarily to gender, race and other characteristics of that nature.”
Would Durbin welcome radio stations owned by Monica Crowley, and Larry Elder? If Dr. Martin Luther King returned to us and wanted to own a radio station, would his not wanting to be judged by the color of his skin count against him? Not being a leftist, I’m not sure what “other characteristics of that nature” might be. Left handedness? Asthma? Gender studies professors?
Wait. Two of those are not proxies for “reliable Democrats.” Mr. Durbin will probably have to supply the list of “other characteristics” that need to be considered.
He should also supply some reasons why apportioning radio licenses on the basis of skin color or plumbing is “in the public interest,” because he and Senator Schumer believe the public is currently incapable of listening to the right … oops … proper opinions on its own. Besides, talk radio is so powerful, liberal Democrats no longer have any power in Washington … right?
