Leftists can try to intimidate and threaten conservative talk radio pundits along with their sponsorship all they want by trying to resurrect the failed and unpopular censorship measure known as the “fairness doctrine,” but it will never work. Why? Because liberal-progressive AM talk radio programs simply do not sell – not enough people care enough to listen, so sponsorship dwindles and pathetic programs like “Air America” fail. Sorry bud, but radio is all about business, not what is fair or balanced. Radio is about entertainment and enlightenment, not about the dispersion of left-wing propaganda.

Thank you, Bruce, for a well written presentation of the facts and figures. Whether you or I agree with the liberal or conservative opinions, facts are facts. All the hype about the media being liberal is not defensible. We have blatant disregard for truth from both sides.

Jonathan, you are right! Newspapers, radio, & television are all profit driven. That's why negative and gory news sells newspapers. The public eats up negative news. The stadiums get fuller after a fiery pileup at a recent racing event. Sporting events have better attendance ofter a few altercations and controversial calls by the officiators.

But, when you talk about dispersion of left-wing propaganda, you are putting out a little of your own right-wing propaganda. You and most conservatives consider anything that doesn't support your position on issues is propaganda.

The conservative talk shows were quite loud in propagating the false information on the health care issues. The 'death panel' propaganda was absolutely false and an example of twisting facts. It was and is perfectly ligitamate for you to oppose the provisions for government reimbursement for end of life consultations with doctors and professional psycologists, but it was not ligitamet to label that as 'death panel' threat. No one was being forced to take advantage of that portion of the program. No one was being forced to abide by the professional's suggestions. Insurance companies are sometimes guilty of death sentence when the they refuse coverage for continued treatment. The majority of patients have no recourse, but to end treatment and die. If they don't have the means they have no choice, but to accept the 'death panel' decision of the insurance company.

I happen to agree that sometimes it is futile to prolong death but the insurance company is profit driven in their decision.

Some of your (my opinion is 'most') conservative talk show hosts, who sell themselves as news casters, are about as ligitamate as professional wrestling. They are skilled entertainers and can't care less about honesty or public good. Rush Limbaugh is at the top of that list. He provides very little in the way of positive constructive idea or information on workable solutions. The bulk of his dialogue is half truth inuendo and divisive commentary. Conservative talk show hosts play on emotional and religious hype.

It doesn't matter the subject or the issue, negative opinions dominate discussion. Both conservative and liberal organizations have a tendency to promote the negative side of all issues. And the radical element of both sides are the ones who shout their messages. Shouting matches drown out all chance of reason and compromise on any issue. I have a very authoritative and dominating voice, and if all you are counting is time and words, I'll win the debate. But, if you are attentive and evaluate the message, the soft spoken and intelligent opposition may very well win the debate with fact and truth.

I once asked a group of friends if they had heard Lynn Rosetta Casper's cooking show on NPR. One piped up and said, "NPR is too boring." I had to think about that one, and what I've finally concluded is that NPR commentators don't shout; rather, they try to deal with facts as much as possible, and they try to cover all sides of an issue--issues always have more than two sides--while still dealing with the facts. Let's take Diane Rehm, for example. Her show is one of the most popular talk shows on the air right now. She will challenge any guest, right, left, or center, who says something that the facts don't support. She never allows negativity to rule her show. However, I suppose some people don't want to sit still and listen to a reasoned, fact-based discussion of issues. They would rather hear people shout and spout the most outrageous conclusions about people and ideas they don't have the facts to fight against.

I've given up watching TV news for that very reason. The news outlets I once trusted, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC, have caved to the bad journalistic habits of Faux News, I suppose because it's the only way they can get the ratings. It doesn't matter if I agree with the political slant of the commentators who run the show on the news outlets. If they're sensationalizing news, why would I be interested?

My husband watches C-SPAN a lot. I don't because I don't have time, but I watch it enough to know that what actually happens, say on the floor of the Senate, gets totally distorted by the time the news outlets get hold of it.

On the issue of intimidating sponsors, I say people have a right to boycott products the makers of which sponsor talk show hosts who spout hate and threatening speech. The boycott is a legitimate power exercised by citizens.

I say bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Maybe we can get sanity back into broadcasting again.

Agreed.

The media should not be in the business of making money, but providing accurate and timely information instead of calculated theatrical propaganda. Fox S-nooz does the latter and it does sell...too well. A study not long ago found that regular Fox viewers were the least accurately informed of all. No surprise. However, the great majority of the mainstream media might be, when it comes to important news rather than entertainment (the last taking up the majority of minutes), accurately described as TTT--Tardy, Timid, and Transitory. Other than dramatic incidents, the corporate (mainstream, same thing) are slow to deal with difficult issues: tardy; tend to sidestep meaningful debate and dialog: timid; and quick to move on to celeb antics and ballgames: transitory. And always more dependent on dramatic visual images than thoughtful analysis. C-SPAN and PBS are generally better sources, as are print sources with legitimate journalists.

Underlying the problem--as others have noted-- is the undeniable and sad fact that way too many citizens are citizens in name only--which is precisely what the corporatocracy likes.

I wish I could see that changing any time soon, but I am not optimistic.