Living In A Multi-Media World

“Don’t tell me you’re one of those people who get their news from the Daily Show!” exclaimed an acquaintance I saw at a BBQ this weekend.

Yes, I admit it. I get a lot of my information about what’s going on in the world from Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert along with Google News, daily email updates from our local Hearst Corp. newspaper, a weekly business-focused paper and CNN, our local Time-Warner Cable all-news channel, the local NPR affiliate, Don Imus’ morning show on WABC-AM, New York (online) and the CBS Sunday Morning show. Rarely, if ever, do I watch a national or local TV newscast. To be honest, they’re not even on my radar.

I also read the local Hearst newspaper on a daily basis, TIME magazine, Business Week, The New Yorker, U.S. News & World Report and Esquire.

I like that on Jon Stewart’s show nothing’s sacred. He mocks all hypocrites whether or not he’s on their side. Stewart will also engage in intelligent discussions with guests with whom he disagrees politically. William Kristol, Bill O’Reilly and John Bolton immediately come to mind.

I get concerned when people tell me that they only watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, read The New York Times and listen exclusively to NPR or folks who only watch Fox News and Bill O’Reilly and who listen exclusively to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on the radio. Rather than developing a broader perspective,
these people intentionally limit their input to reinforce one political viewpoint and that can be dangerous in a democracy.

It’s an interesting paradox that when there were fewer media outlets and less choice, we were exposed to many different ideas which we considered irrelevant or with which we disagreed. Now, in this age of virtually unlimited information sources, we can narrowly control the information to which we are exposed and which can reinforce our prejudices.

The Fairness Doctrine

As a political moderate and independent, I have concerns that a Democratic majority will let their biases override good sense and will create rules and laws which restrict freedom of speech on broadcast radio outlets. They seem to have some misguided notion that corporate edicts dictate the content of talk radio when, in fact, conservative talk radio replaced moderate/liberal talk radio because conservatives tended to be more passionate about and loyal to their favorite talk shows than did moderates and liberals.

Those in Congress who advocate the return of the Fairness Doctrine don't seem to understand that when radio was deregulated during the Reagan era and there was an explosion of new frequencies on the dial each station's programming had to become more focused and predictable in order to survive. Power was transferred from the programmers to the listeners who were able to get what they wanted when they wanted it and knew where to find it on their radio dials. Now, with streaming, podcasts, Twitter and soon WiFi distribution of Internet radio, there are abundant opportunities to hear different opinions for those who want to hear them.

Obviously, there is a liberal audience available and NPR stations whose programming tends to be more politically progressive than commercial radio boast large and loyal audiences. In fact, the success of public radio with listeners with moderate and/or liberal political views might be a reason why commercial radio stations have been largely unsuccessful in cultivating a significant audience base of those listeners.