The growth and dominance of conservative talk radio

Talk radio is about 30 years old, and the conservatives own it because liberal talk shows are boring, repetitive and represent a failed economic system, so it's hard to get sponsors. But that’s only possible because the “fairness doctrine” which is actually intended to limit speech and opinion to pure government think died when Reagan booted it. The media, according to Hugh Hewitt, which at one time had standards went left very quickly during the VietNam War and have never recovered their balance. Until 1989 when Rush Limbaugh came on the scene, the left owned the airways--TV, radio and entertainment shows. Now there are hundreds of local and national talk shows. Many of these hosts like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, etc. also write best selling books (which your public library may ignore), make personal tours and appear as knowledgeable guests on national shows. Many of the conservative hosts also regularly have liberals on their show just to prove it can be done. 

The success of talk radio laid the ground work for the most popular cable New channel in 1996, Fox News and all their opinion shows and panels at the other slots. It was fabulous successful, with ratings killing the other cable and network shows.  Now the Fox Formula is being dismantled, and today if you turn it on, you might hear a timid commentator waiting for the axe to drop speak about an important issue, but the producers will show only clips and filters of the opposition. They are killing the golden goose, but perhaps Soros is underwriting the shift.

Expect them to attempt to take down talk radio next, then any conservative social media sites.

Government surveillance

Just heard an IT professional call the Hugh Hewett show (98.9 FM Columbus, 6-9 a.m.) during a discussion of government surveillance the history of which went back to Nixon. His advice: Just as "all guns are loaded" is a precautionary warning, so also "all electronic devices can watch us." 

 

The government is not just collecting metadata, but content. In my opinion, the larger the company, the more likely they are to allow government snooping--helps cut out the competition if they cooperate. It's not real time in your social media, the algorithms of Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter are manipulated to influence your thinking and judgement. Whether you're Tea Party or Black Lives Matter, someone in government is watching and collecting data. Facebook cooperated with the Chinese Communists which by law allows that snooping, so why would it not cooperate with NSA or CIA? Yahoo allowed government perusal of users emails. I don't generally recommend Wikipedia, but look at The Church Committee for a little history.

 

So why are some assuming candidate Trump wasn't the subject of surveillance by the Obama administration?