I check on The St. Petersburg Times in like fashion. Its take on the news is typically slanted left and most often its editorial positions are insipid as well as tilted left.
Which brings us to columnist Ernest Hooper in today's edition. After all, I need to check occasionally to make sure the paper hasn't changed its ways.
I'm glad to hear that Hooper thinks the market should dictate what we hear. But it seems like he contradicts himself within the space of two more paragraphs.
I'm glad President Obama isn't promoting the "Fairness Doctrine," because the market should dictate what we hear.But why do so many crave the current homogenous programming?
Radio should be about community (see WMNF), not syndication. If more stations remembered that, maybe we would get a fair and balanced offering.
He wonders why so many want to listen to Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck--supposedly "homogeneous." Well, the shows aren't homogeneous at all. The men disagree with each other on quite a few things, politically, and they express themselves on the radio in dramatically different ways. I wonder what gave Hooper something other than the same impression?
Then he goes on to tell us what radio should be about. Well, if radio content should be dictated by the market then what's wrong with having plenty of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck to choose from? As for the paragon of what radio should be ...
That story refers to 2005. Maybe ratings are way up for WMNF since then. But I wouldn't bet on it.
How does WMNF's listernership compare to other radio stations? Here are Arbitron's ratings, which reflect the estimated number of people who listened to the station at least once a week, during the fall.
WMNF 88.5 (community radio): 115,700
WQYK 99.5 (country): 292,000
WFLZ 93.3 (pop): 413,900
Source: Arbitron and WMNF
Make up your mind, Hooper. Should radio broadcast what the market demands or change to a focus on the local community?
I made a mistake that will end up reflecting on Hooper as I correct it. I misquoted him in his reference to conservative radio talk show hosts. Hooper used the term "homogenous" whereas in relating what he wrote I changed it to "homogeneous." I believe I used the correct term.
Watch out: if you ever find yourself writing homogenous, you probably mean homogeneous.
(read more at Sabretext editorial consulting)
Hooper, unlike me, has deadlines and an editor as fallback excuses. And then again, maybe AP style prefers the shorter word to save on type.