Daily Archives: Saturday, November 22, 2008

Illuminating comparison

Here are two graphs.  Let’s consider the contradiction in them and why there is this contradiction.

 

The first graph is self-explanatory and shows the growing tendency for Americans to identify with the Democratic Party, moving away from identification with the Republican Party.

The second graph captures the frequency of news stories (just before and then following the election) which have “America is a center-right nation” as subject (or the questioning of that presumption).  But if you watch/read as much news as I have time to do (and few will or can), you will have noticed (and I’ve written about it here) that this far more often comes as an assertion.  One would think that the elections of 2006 and 2008, aside from other polling data that’s available, would tend to discourage such assertions.  But clearly, they are arriving with frequency and vigor.

If you turn on a conservative talk radio show today, or watch an hour of Fox, it is near a certainty that you will hear this assertion made, likely more than once.  If you watch cable news other than Fox today, you will hear this assertion forwarded by some conservative pundit invited onto the show.  Again, you’ll hear it multiple times.  Many people asserting it will belief it to be true.  Others will be asserting it for strategic propagandist reasons whether they believe it so or not. 

So, what to make of that rather astounding rise in frequency seen in graph 2?  I think it is two things.  First, a purposeful PR project (directed at both the media and the public) to blunt the depth or significance of conservative losses.  The hope is to push back against the possible narrative of Democrats/liberalism as “winners” and the narrative of increasing liberalism as the choice of the majority.  Second, I think it is a consequence of so many members of the conservative movement living with an isolated and self-validating universe such that they cannot actually conceive that they might sit outside of the majoritarian norm. 

 

Nate Silver is one smart fellow

Nate Silver: There are a certain segment of conservatives who literally cannot believe that anybody would see the world differently than the way they do. They have not just forgotten how to persuade; they have forgotten about the necessity of persuasion.

David Foster Wallace: And here is where the real controversy starts, because these opinions are, as just one person’s opinions, exempt from strict journalistic standards of truthfulness, probity, etc., and yet they are often delivered by the talk-radio host not as opinions but as revealed truths, truths intentionally ignored or suppressed by a “mainstream press” that’s “biased” in favor of liberal interests. This is, at any rate, the rhetorical template for Rush Limbaugh’s program, on which most syndicated and large-market political talk radio is modeled, from ABC’s Sean Hannity and Talk Radio Network’s Laura Ingraham to G. G. Liddy, Rusty Humphries, Michael Medved, Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, Dennis Prager, and, in many respects, Mr. John Ziegler…

Whatever the social effects of talk radio or the partisan agendas of certain hosts, it is a fallacy that political talk radio is motivated by ideology. It is not. Political talk radio is a business, and it is motivated by revenue. The conservatism that dominates today’s AM airwaves does so because it generates high Arbitron ratings, high ad rates, and maximum profits.

Radio has become a more lucrative business than most people know. Throughout most of the past decade, the industry’s revenues have increased by more than 10 percent a year. The average cash-flow margin for major radio companies is 40 percent, compared with more like 15 percent for large TV networks; and the mean price paid for a radio station has gone from eight to more than thirteen times cash flow. Some of this extreme profitability, and thus the structure of the industry, is due to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which allows radio companies to acquire up to eight stations in a given market and to control as much as 35 percent of a market’s total ad revenues. The emergence of huge, dominant radio conglomerates like Clear Channel and Infinity is a direct consequence of the ’96 Act (which the FCC, aided by the very conservative D.C. Court of Appeals, has lately tried to make even more permissive). And these radio conglomerates enjoy not just substantial economies of scale but almost unprecedented degrees of business integration.  http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/did-talk-radio-kill-conservatism.html

 

There are just two quick tastes of Silver’s piece and a 2005 Atlantic piece by David Foster Wallace which Silver references.  Both are worth reading in full for anyone interested in this stuff.