Glad to see that our tax dollars were hard at work firing up Air Force One to shuttle W. to Nashville and back. Did the right complain about the Fairness Doctrine when it gave them there chance to speak out against the lefty media?

LAMBERT: Pandering to the delusional base and vowing to be protect THEIR interests when there's zero chance he ever will is, I guess, considered bona fide presidential business. Therefore you and me pick up the tab.

Since we're being picky about grammar and spelling (I hit send and then realized that I misspelled their.) I believe that should be "you and I."

LAMBERT: You are correct. (Editors ... sheesh.)

KTLK unlike MPR receives no tax money for programmng. KTLK, KSTP AM, 1280 AM all depend on garnering sufficient audiences to make advertisements profitable. The result, then, is the free market which favors conservative over liberal talk radio.

Like major city daily newspapers liberal talk radio is devolving into nothingness. Such is the discipline of the market.

What the fairness doctrine does is prevent people from listening to what they want to and institute a nanny state sense of egalitarian liberal sameness that is in the process of killing off the print media.

I can well understand why liberals want to eliminate free choice. They lose everytime it is tried.

In the meantime, liberals are also ruining the language as usual. We have had a steady barrage of claims that we need more tax payer funded "investment" when this really means more taxes and spending. Now we have controls designed to control free speech described as a "fairness doctrine." Again, proof that when the facts are truly described, liberalism is often found wanting. Not always but often.

LAMBERT: Bush's reference to "Orwellian" is of course perversely ironic, and so I must say are your comments Blueler, when referring to the "free market".

I've never thought the market for "liberal talk" is anything close to what it is for "conservative talk". In my experience liberals just don't seem to gravitate to the "my team vs. the devils" and the "infallible host/guru" thing, even when it is one of their own. But the so-called Air America "experiment" has been hobbled from the get-go by the inability to play on anything but low-power fringe stations, a direct consequence of large scale consolidation by major players like Clear Channel -- a prominent source of conservative political funding. Sorry, that is actually a "fact".

You strike me as bright enough to know that the Fairness Doctrine in no way "prevents people from listening to what they want to". No one is thrown off the air. But they would have to -- gasp! -- adapt. What it does do is create a dialogue, a genuine contest of ideas and opinions, by applying requirements for an actual debate. Kind of like checks and balances, (which have been badly ignored by the current administration and its sycophants, but that's another story).

I can understand why the likes of Rush and Michael Savage would not want to be placed in proximity to active counterpoints, but the point here is the public good, not the stock price of Clear Channel.

As I say, the fundamental issue here is that these are PUBLIC AIRWAVES. KTLK, The Patriot and the thousands of "Christian" broadcasters DO NOT OWN these frequencies. They pay nothing to use them. (I might take a different attitude if Clear Channel and every other broadcaster had to pay 10% of their annual gross back into a general fund for the privilege of having/abusing a license.) But their attitude, and yours, is that they have some kind of divine right, as though they created the airwaves. They didn't. They don't.

According to rules dating back to the dawn of the industry, they have an obligation to community service ... which is far different thing than an obligation to shareholder value.

If Clear Channel loses (more) money transitioning to talk formats that once again allows and encourages a robust debate of actual facts -- not truthy factoids cherry-picked and rewoven by artful carnival acts -- there won't be a lot of people crying. The enormous radio conglomerates are doing a miserably bad job of adapting, testing and marketing innovative formats in every kind of radio.

Brian (or do you prefer Client #6?):

If memory serves me, W's so-called investment in the Rangers was actually funded by Richard Rainwater, making the deal only sweeter for our fearless leader and baseball whizkid. I note he also claimed yesterday that John Boehner would become Speaker next year, so apparently his sense of reality remains slightly impaired.

LAMBERT: Yes, and W* is assuring his 22% that Republicans will storm to victory in the fall. In the interests of him putting his easily-earned money where his mouth is, I think he out to throw his overnight $14.4 million profit off the Rangers deal into a betting pool.

One question. If the public owns the airwaves, who did they buy them from?

I've invoked my father-in-law's long-time association with small-market community radio a number of times. When he -- and I -- had our houses mortgaged for an 80/90 FM license and when we were pulling in all of $250 a day in advertising, and while we were winning awards for "service" to the community, what skin did the public have in the game? You know, since they owned the airwaves and all?

LAMBERT: Is it really asking too much for a business based on a limited public commodity to provide the means accurate, multi-faceted flow of information? If they can't handle any "information" other than one side of significant. "controversial" public issues, let 'em switch to Classic Country.

//They pay nothing to use them.

Brian, this is absolutely not true. The airwaves are regulated. If you want to sneeze, you have to file paperwork with the FCC. That requires an FCC attorney at big bucks

Take my old small-market station. $1,200 annual regulatory "fee." Every time you want to change something, that requires not only the FCC attorney (probably on retainer) but also a filing fee.

Then, of course, you've got to build the infrastructure to access the airwaves.

The "they pay nothing" thing is an oft-stated mantra; but it's not really the case.

LAMBERT: Everyone has a cost of doing business. But look at these numbers. How significant are they relative to the size of something like Citadel, CBS Radio or Clear Channel. Moreover, I'm believing the lobbying leverage of empires like this -- talk about buying airtime by the railcar full -- makes for some very close friends in Congress and ample ways of shaving down that cost ... of doing business. Obviously, small broadcasters don't the advantages of this kind of "economies of scale". But the license itself, the piece of paper that gets you a seat at the table ... ?

No, it's not asking too much (you didn't answer my question, though. (g)) It's worth exploring, though, why radio got out of the news business. Did people just stop getting their news that way and advertisers walk away from the product Was AM radio (in particular) the newspapers of the '80s, when news on radio pretty much died? What begat what?

Personally, I don't have a problem saying all candidates should get equal airtime, or that issue coverage should be fair and balanced.

Now, here's what will happen as soon as it comes back: Someone will file a protest with the FCC that radio station XYZ wasn't "fair" in covering, say, the gas tax bill and, in particular, the subsequent coverage of the split in the GOP caucus. They'll file some paperwork about how XYZ didn't provide the same sort of coverage of Democrats when Joe Lieberman lost his Democratic endorsement in Connecticut (look, it doesn't have to be a logical argument, it just has to be an argument).

And then the station is off and running, paying its FCC attorney big bucks to answer some protest that is designed merely to harass the station and keep the bloggers happy. They'll invoke the usual nonsense about liberal leanings (ignoring XYZ's coverage of the AG Swanson affair) and when that's done... they'll file another... and another... and another.

The FD also implies that there are only two sides of every issue, which is also wrong; but that's another story.

And, it further codifies that the First Amendment doesn't apply to broadcasters, which is a troubling thing that doesn't seem to bother too many people.

LAMBERT: I don't doubt your scenario. But I'm trying to re-re-re-emphasize the limited commodity aspect of broadcast frequencies. Look, in an internet radio world, I could not care less. But as long as we're talking about x-number of available frequencies, let's do something to abate stupidity and offer the public a wider breadth of "information".

Clearly though, this is a piece of legislation that has to be crafted to avoid being just another profit center for attorneys, although, as I say attorney lobbyists are probably soaking up a fat share of "shareholder value" as it is.

Right. I get that. But behind the "empires" there still are mom and pop radio stations. $1,200 just to get in the game is a lot of money (I think at WCCO it's $6,000). Maybe there should be a two-track regulatory system: one for the empires, and one for the people who actually think it's still possible to run a local radio station and be a part of the community.

LAMBERT: There absolutely ought to be a two, or three track system. The Bush argument that the current system protects and ensures "diversity" is truly a sick joke.

If it wasn't for those fucking lawyers!

LAMBERT: Predatory and overpaid. Every damn one of them.

And where would Mendicant Pauper Radio fit into this tiered system? Empire, community, Mom & Pop?

LAMBERT: Empire. The embodiment of "empire".

Why do you hate the free market system?

LAMBERT: What's the "free" part?

Laughing my a** off! We've come full circle, thanks to Son of Mississippi and Lambert.

"F*cking lawyers"? "predatory and overpaid. Every damn one of them"?

Now we can *really* start talking about fairness and $4,300 hookers! :-)

LAMBERT: First rule of show biz: Give the people what they want.

I am suprised of the energy you push behind the fairness doctrine.
So lets say hypothetically that the fairness doctrine is reinstated, and there is a Democratic majority. That will be fine for you in the short term. If (and if history repeats itself every decade or so) a conservative enters the White House again and appoints his own FCC board, are you going to trust them to determine what "all sides" are? I have a feeling you would be more apprehensive of a fairness doctrine under a Republican Presdient. Would the same passion be behind this if Air America had worked? (Al Franken wouldnt even be running for Senate had it worked). Politics on its surface can be strictly left or right, but in both parties there are factions (the secular vs. non secular republicans, the extreeme leftists vs. the Union Democrats) that could then be divided into multiple sides.
For months the buzz has been (on this blog and elsewhere) that talk radio is dead, and if the conservative "blowhards" as you call them are so infuluential, how do you explain the 2006 election, or the emergence of John McCain?
Do you also support equal time for the flip side on broadcast televison, public televison? The internet? Or is it because the only medium that has been friendly or dominated by conservatives is Talk Radio, that this must be stopped. Would a fairness doctrine mean that Air America is required to offer a conservative balance even in cities where liberal radio has worked? (Madison, Seattle)
If conservative radio is truly dead, and an argument could be made through KSTP's decision to drop their syndicated line up, and KTLK's medicore ratings, why not let it die and fizzle out?

LAMBERT: So many questions. Despite your reasonably valid concerns that all I really want to do is stick a sock in the mouths of loathsome bigots like Michael Savage, I can make the argument that a little competition would be good for conservative talk radio. I mean, don't Rush and all the hundreds of Rush wannabes live by selling the idea they're talking "facts" and "common sense"? So what the hell, drop in some "nanny state" liberal and let Rush flattened 'em day after day. I mean that's the only way it could possibly go, right? Should Air America be required to run conservative counter-points? Yes. And for the record, I'm not saying talk radio is dead, (music radio is the one that has very large looming audience problems). What I've been saying is that conservative talkers are failing to recognize, failing to accept, failing to cop to the that much of what is being rejected in this overall push for change is THEIR ideology. THEY have been the cheerleaders for Bush, his war, his duplicity with regards to the Constitution, oversight, and on and on. McCain's success, to date, has everything to do with, A; A lousy field of candidates, and B. Republican exhaustion with incompetence, corruption and failure -- as loudly supported by Limbaugh, Hannity, Lewis, etc.

Were there a Fairness Doctrine, and were there voices "calling bullshit" with scheduled regularity on the same stations as the voices supporting all this appalling malfeasance, the Republican party might actually be in a better condition today than it is.

Of course if you take Limbaugh, Lewis etc. at their word that THEY are the true Republican party ... I'd start looking for a deck chair or something that floats.

Bri-bri:

Let's try one more time: conservative talk radio emerged, and is wildly successful, because the drivel your liberally biased "mainstream" media had been emitting for so long was finally able to be countered and called for what it is - fetid crap-ola!

That connotes a certain "fairness" in and of itself, no? Because, before, there was really no effective channel to compete with those who "buy ink by the gallon".

And Bri, 'case you haven't noticed, and I bet you have, THE SAME THING is happening ON-LINE, the conservative blogs and bloggers are having a field day skewering the folly of liberalism - and people are READING it!

You're starting to sound a bit desparate, Bri, with these tomes imagining that a "Fairness Doctrine" will somehow negate the evil (conservative) Snidely Whiplash as he continually ties your damsel of liberal thinking to the tracks....

Better take a good look at that light in the tunnel!

LAMBERT: I'm sure you mean, "insanely successful".

I'm sure we'd get balance the likes of Hannity and his Eunuch.

LAMBERT: Otherwise known as "Fair" and "Balanced".

The most siginificant memory I have from the junior high school debate team is that you have to know both sides of the issue. Seems to me that the Fairness Doctrine is meant to educate the listeners.

Let's not forget the fundamental freedom of choice that we all have. We can switch channels or even hit the power button if we don't want to listen.

LAMBERT: True enough, but again ... public airwaves ... which doesn't give current licensees the right to scream "fire" or "fraud" whenever and as long as they want.

Yes, Bertram Jr., the conservative bloggers and ranters have typed and hollered your man, Bush all the way to low 30s approval ratings and 76% of the country asking for a president who will take us in a new direction.

Your reasoning and grasp of reality is, if nothing else, at least consistent.

LAMBERT: There's no "new" or "nuance" to bertram.

Tut, tut, boys....time shall tell.

I think you both realize full well which way the wind is blowing.

Actually conservative talk radio emerged because radio had tried everything else and nothing was working. When there was nothing left to try, stations put Rush Limbaugh on the air and he was wildly successful because his demographic were the only ones still listening to AM radio.

That's #1. #2 the way media works is once someone has something that works, everyone else copies it. So that's why all the Rush wannabees popped up.

Since the end of the Fairness Doctrine, however, America HAS become more stupid and the question is WHY? Is it because the media stopped covering important stories? Or is it because more and more people stopped listening to the news? THAT's the important question that needs to be answered as we look for solutions to the basic problem that people are uninformed.

The Pew Center is out today, as a matter of fact, with a survey that shows only half of those surveyed know what state John McCain represents.

Only 70% know which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2008/03/whats_your_news_iq.shtml

One might calculate that neither of these salient facts is the OTHER SIDE of any story. They're just basic facts, that have been delivered over and over and over and over.

And yet...

LAMBERT: It may be impossible to separate rigid partrisanship from this Fairness Doctrine debate. But ... since "controversial" public issues are so much a part of talk radio's appeal, I continue to argue that some kind of mechanism should be built into the system to check and balance outrageous fallacies and provide listeners with a range of perspectives instead of just ... one.

Frankly, I'd be curious and amused to hear what conservatives might offer in response to what they consider the "bias" of public radio. What? The Flat Earth Society balancing "Science Friday"?

Thanks to Bob for pointing out what I would've pointed out. The Fairness Doctrine repeal didn't do anything to make Limbaugh--just the desperation to make AM work made Limbaugh.

The other factor was the advent of satellite distribution, which made live national programming easier to run and single-handedly made talk radio possible in every city and town in the nation, since the talent pool of talk hosts was always very shallow (it's much easier for someone to learn how to hit buttons and read liner cards about "another commercial-free set of lite rock with less talk" than to learn how to be a talk show host, especially the ability to thrust and parry with callers). Before satellite, only the big cities could sustain a 24-hour schedule with competent local talent. Now, any station can sustain a 24-hour schedule with shows off the bird.

Of course, some of these right-wingers don't even have their wits. :)

LAMBERT: OK. Good points. But the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine removed any possibility of the bureaucratic, legalistic dog-fighting described earlier by Mr. Collins (looking toward its possible reinstatement). I'm saying Limbaugh's appeal is heavily dependent on being uncontested, on being able to sell infallibility. That's the magic of his shtick. That act starts falling apart when you have someone on in close proximity saying, in effect, "what you just heard was a load of bullshit, and here's why." That's bad programming.

Sand Fairness Doctrine, compounded by consolidation and satellite every mom and pop station can lap up the same act, or sell out to the big corporation who owns him. Beautiful.

This notion that broadcasters have some communitarian notion to present balance is based on the false premise that the public owns the airwaves. I would think a much fairer system would be where no one owns them, and would allow anyone to broadcast with no barriers to entry in the way of licensing. With the advance of technology, we should be able to get around signal interference problems that have required the bandwidth to be so heavily managed.

I don't know what the value of format innovation is when nearly all of radio is listened to so passively. Its backgound noise for most of us. That applies to me as well, and I love radio.

LAMBERT: The public DOES own the airwaves. And I've said in response to a previous comment that I could not care less how unbalanced, inaccurate or outrageous anyone wants to be on the internet or off a satellite. I repeat, my issue is the abuse of a publicly-held commodity.

Back on the fairness doctrine again huh Brian?

I'll say what I did last time. Radio doesn't matter anymore -- the debate has moved to the Internet and sadly people run to their favorite website for the slanted view of the world they want to hear.

I remain free market orientated. Radio now competes with satellite, cable, and Internet. You can't force radio to give equal time when the other formats do not. People will then really bail on radio.

As an example, KTLK is forced to air liberal rebuttals on stuff that Rush or Lewis spew out. Do you really think your average liberal is going to rush to KTLK at 9 PM some night to hear the rebuttal? Will KTLK be able to make a buck on the airtime?

I'm with you on the evils of Clear Channel. But I want no part of someone defining "fair". I'd rather the market played it out. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than liberals bummed because they cannot compete with talk radio. See Air America for the prime example.

But I guess since Air America was such a failure, we should just force the same content on other stations?

I know, you and I will never agree about this.

LAMBERT: I won't repeat what I've said above responding to earlier posts about the "failure" of Air America and liberals' appetite for the talk radio shtick. But this is in no way the "free market". And as for me getting back on it, Bush brought it up.

I understand your point separating radio because it is "public" airwaves. With that being said, do you not feel there is a valid argument that daytime television talk shows, network news coverage, documentary film have a point of view or agenda? I am not talking satelite or the internet I am talking PBS, or a Don Shelby commentary on WCCO. Wouldn't a true fairness doctrine allow Jason Lewis to provide commentary on WCCO?
To comment on an earlier question, in this market we have had non Air America liberal radio competing with conservative radio. Katherine Lanpher, Turi Ryder, Tom Mischke, Pat Reussi, and Don Shelby to think of a few. Some have lasted long, some have not. Radio conglomerates are like big banks. They will be a Democrat or Republican depending on what the better deal is. If talk radio starts to fail, they will switch to automated music, or try more moderate talkers. If Limbaugh and Hannity were not profitable (as they were not in Hubbard's case) would they not be gone? What conservative talker has ever been given a show out of charity?

LAMBERT: Look, I get and acknowledge that conservative talk has been a money maker. It is very good business for companies who syndicate it and, to a lesser degree, the "mom and pop" operators who now have something other than dull local programming to play through the day. But please, can we move past the apples-and-grapefruit comparison of Don Sheby and Jason Lewis? (The other variation on this is CNN or CBS and Bill O'Reilly.) That sort of thing resonates within the closed community of antagonized conservatives but shrieks "lazy analogizing" to everyone else. One is a persistent, unequivocal, unabashed
advocate for very specific causes and candidates. The other is very consciously walking a "on the one hand this on the other hand that" line. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

But that said, a five minute televised face-off between Lewis and some equally partisan lefty would make good, maybe even illuminating TV. Like so much of what you see in the newspapers, the local TV stations could do a lot worse in terms of drawing a crowd.

After a year of living under a new Fairness Doctrine I'd love to see advertising rates. It would be more fun than poll numbers.

What a 30 second spot would cost during "Wingnut" hours versus liberal hours of airtime at the very same radio station.

LAMBERT: It'd be like your cable bill with those funky "tiers", where ESPN pays the freight for C-SPAN.

Whew! I've become totally disorientated. Or would be if that was actually a word. My preference for English always trips me up. Anywhoooo...If I follow this thread correctly (and who can say otherwise) re-implentation of the Fairness Doctrine would mean more lefty talking heads like that cute Rachel Madow. Is that about it? If so, what's the problem again?

LAMBERT: This is awfully light on your usual twisty, in-the-out door snark, Frogman. Having a bad day? But seriously, there are only a couple characters on "liberal talk" who appear to have any idea what is involved in show biz. Our local affiliate is an unlistenable wasteland that would be more entertaining if it read wetland drainage survey reports.

And besides, Air America is not a "failure" and is not off the air. It is still in operation, even without Franken and despite the incompetency of some of its well-meaning founders. It is a survivor and will be around for the immediate future.

AAR's biggest hardship was believing that its audience would go for Limbaughian radio for the left in the same way that the right loves Limbaughian radio. The liberal audience is just too skeptical for that sort of thing. And those who want red-meat-rip-the-bastards-apart radio for the left are the kind who would consider AAR suspect because of its commercial nature and worship Amy Goodman and "Democracy Now!" as true "independent media." As much as NPR's nicey-nice, even-handed, let the less nutty right talk approach drives the *real* far left (not the neocon definition that calls Hillary Clinton "radical") crazy, that appeals to the left-of-center more than Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz's El Rushbo-style fulminating. And as I hear bertram scream "Bathtub Boy!", Olbermann's on television--a medium that both Limbaugh and Savage failed at dismally.

LAMBERT: My points, exactly. Thank you. Again, in my experience the "liberal" audience a station wants is insulted by the transparent bullshit that sustains conservative talk. They want bona fide information much of it of the kind the reviled "MSM" reports only superficially. And even Olbermann, who I generally like, would be much less interesting to me without his cast of Milbank, Wolffe, Chuck Todd, Fineman, Maddow, Alter, etc. I thought his "Special Comment" on Hillary the other night fell off into self-parody.

Hey! Don't be calling me Mr. Nice Guy. I was making fun of whoever it was who said he was "free market orientated," along with everyone else who took time to contribute to the overlong debate on the Fairness Doctrine that you TRICKED US INTO READING BY MENTIONING HIGH-PRICED HOOKERS AT THE TOP...

LAMBERT: Ok. That's better. You've detected the folly and perfidy in my and everyone else's thinking. Be sure to look for my up-coming post, "Red Hot Sex Stars and Their Arbitron Diaries".

Before this thread spools out here, I'll toss a few thoughts out--
--Radio's problems making money have nothing to do with fairness doctrine, before or after, it has to do with providing interesting or valuable content. Don't blame the tool, blame the carpenter controlling it.
--Advertising expense might be what it is called on the accounting books, but what currently makes Rush and ilk rich should be called 'Lobbying Expense'...as I imagine the advertisers thereupon make about as much money on those ads as Brian makes on his blog advertising (how's that 2nd home coming along? ;)). The real value of Rushbo radio advertising is in rallying their special interest group.
--Personally, I don't care about Rushbo and Co not being fair, BUT I do care about the radio station itself not making any effort to provide fairness in the schedule.

I feel the public is enriched by point AND counterpoint, by conservatives and progressives exchanging ideas in public instead of behind closed doors. I like to be treated like a grownup, and that I can handle opposing, even conflicting points of view. Let the politicians triangulate, and let all the people speak so these politicians can hear all the voices they are supposed to represent, not just the ones with the microphone today.

LAMBERT: I'll sell you a banner ad right here for 10% of a Rushbo spot.

It's worth noting that the biggest decline in radio news efforts happened while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. Rather than subjecting themselves to the problems I described earlier, radio stations simply dismantled their news operations so that there was nothing to be fair about.

When they became nothing more, then, than stations playing crappy music and reading weather and liner cards, then there was really nothing to distinguish one station from another, there was no longer any reason NOT to turn over all programming to a satellite service or pot up (there's a phrase you don't hear much in radio anymore) the network.

Radio lost its localism and that fate was sealed when the duopoly rules were eliminated. It used to be you could only own 7 stations and no 3 of them could have overlapping signals.

And, that, of course, paved the way for the big radio chains of today.

The question, then, is can that genie put back in the bottle ONLY by restoring the Fairness Doctrine?

LAMBERT: I have this perverse belief that over-the-air radio's salvation might lie in the cratering value of the licenses. If you could get the same gargantuan companies out of owning everything from Manhattan to Ten Sleep, you might have a netter chance of achieving something like diversity of colloquial content and point of view.

Finally, Frogman Of Grant gets us to something interesting, as Carrie Miller would say:

Orientated is a word that is generally understood to mean, facing east, and usually applies to a sacred building. So I guess disorientated would mean, what, not facing east? And that would likely be in England, where they say and write, "orientated" in the way that we say and write, "oriented," to say in one word, to get one's bearings. But here in the States, go with disoriented. Unless you're on conservative talk radio, then it hardly matters given you're listners' demonstrated inability to detect people with appallingly poor diction, much less care.

LAMBERT: So if I'm floating into New York harbor looking at all the tall buildings, am I "occidentated"?

Mr. Leinfelder is, of course, correct that "orientate" is technically a word and more commonly used in Britain than in the U.S. However, it is deemed a "needless variant" of the word orient, with which it is synonymous. (See: "A Dictionary of Modern American Usage" by Bryan Garner).

Meanwhile, who is "Carrie" Miller?

One point I haven't seen addressed here, regarding the question of whether the popularity of conservative radio denotes success in the free marketplace of ideas, is who the target customer is -- that is, who is actually footing the bill for broadcast media. Hint: It's not the listeners. Radio, like TV, is not in the business of delivering content to listeners. It's in the business of delivering listeners to advertisers. It's all about pleasing the sponsors, and it's no surprise that big advertisers are likely to prefer pro-corporate, pro-consumerism, pro-status quo content. I'd say that, for Air America-type radio, the general unwillingness of big-ticket sponsors to support left-leaning radio content has been at least as big a stumbling block as monopolistic station ownership, the relative lack of radio skills among AAR talent, and the absence of the Fairness Doctrine. The lefty audience is out there (though it's spending most of its time arguing Barack vs. Hillary on the blogosphere instead of listening to radio), but it's up to lefty radio programmers to persuade advertisers that they have the content that can deliver that audience -- and that the sponsors' stock price won't be harmed by their association with such content.

LAMBERT: Entirely valid. I'm regularly amazed that nutball right-wing radio-style Republicanism is sold, that is to say accepted by business, as a safe "default" position for reaching a mass audience. And I'm not talking Arne Carlson-Dave Durenberger-style Republican, I'm talking Sean Hannity. Meanwhile, businesses, particularly small businesses in my experience, think anything criticizing George W. Bush or suggesting the Iraq War is a colossal bungle -- even now -- is just too scary and "way out there".

Like "avuncular" and other words that do not come to mind this instant, "orientated" lacks an antonym (except to add the prefix "dis,") which, when you you think about, almost sounds like one for avuncular.

I imagine it's because the West is associated with the new, as in, New World, so there is no tendency to point a sacred building this direction, since all the major religions trace to Eastern origins. The exception, I suppose, would be the Church of JC and Latter Day Saints, red hot in the procelytizing stats. It's newest adherrents would, perhaps, "orient" their temples toward Utah, or, perhaps, Indiana, where Moroni left those gold tablets for Joseph Smith to, um, commit to memory. So perhaps some Mormon linguist is at work on filling that lacuna in the language that means, "face West." You may have saved him the trouble.

LAMBERT: But have they performed their hermeneutics?