90% of AM radio stations are owned by ~5 companies pushing a conservative agenda, with a similar disparity in programming (i.e., 90% conservative).
Most of the 10% of non-conservative stations are in progressive markets, where they have little impact. E.g., in San Francisco, the programming split is ~70/30% conservative/liberal.
Here's the (admittedly biased) source, but the numbers would be easily rebutted if untrue:
AM radio licenses are a fixed government monopoly, and it's well within the budget of political organizations to subsidize a radio station, so there will be no change in this disparity driven by market solutions.
Assuming the numbers are true, once government policy results in an enduring political bias in media, does the government have any responsibility to mitigate that bias?
Does the government have any obligation or even mandate to reach into product design and require certain features - features unrelated to safety, pollution, energy, or any other generally accepted social good?
>90% of AM radio stations are owned by ~5 companies pushing a conservative agenda
This is a bipartisan bill protecting the government's ability to transmit emergency notices on what is inarguably the best available technology to do it.
Saving lives takes precedence over your political identity, I hope. Thankfully both sides of the Senate think so.
I'm glad you weren't involved in their decision. You seem to have lost sight of what's important.
Let’s duplicate the weather radio broadcasts on the AM bands and leave the commercial stuff on the internet/podcasts in order to maximize safety, then. I’m sure the folks lobbying for this bill like the Salem Media Group wouldn’t mind.
Reorganizing the spectrum to appease one party is not only unlikely to pass with bipartisan support, but would also decrease safety because existing signage is for messages broadcast on the spectrum organized as it is right now.
This is a place for discussion, so have a little grace, eh? It's fair to ask "Why not use NOAA radio" or "Doesn't the Emergency Alert System still work".
Is it ungraceful to point out that mindless political zealotry costs you the debate at least and people's lives at worst? I think it's constructive if anything.
Why not NOAA? Because existing signage is already in place for the current spectrum arrangement.
Now we have to replace signage across 50 states? No thanks. I don't listen to AM radio. You don't either.
I don't care, and if I were in Congress I'd lean toward keeping AM in vehicles unless the carmakers proved it to be too costly a burden (though the government imposes plenty of costs onto new vehicles already).
Calling someone skeptical of Republican motives a mindless zealot is... Zealous.
If it were midnight and a Republican told me the sky was dark, I wouldn't say it's bright out. But I'd take a peek to check. There is not good faith to be had with that party.
Nothing in the commenter's take was skeptical of anything. It is literally a baseless accusation of conspiracy that even if true ignores the value of human life.
Skepticism is fine. Killing people because you "doubt the other party" has no place in society.
That kind of decision making, that ignores safety, should more rightly be met with jail time, not leadership in a democracy.
Thankfully for the rest of us, both parties can see that.
Or that maybe there are actually some politics involved behind the scenes because AM radio is a big distribution channel for Sean Hannity given it's the 4th most popular talk radio with 10 of the top 20 talk radio shows being conservative talk radio. I would be shocked if they didn't weigh in if for nothing other than financial interest.
They probably did. And leaving the band alone is still the best solution. Do nothing, problem solved. I don't see what the criticism is about.
If the Left pushed to rearrange the band and won, then there would be something to criticize. Now we have to redo signage? Or we're all less safe? For what? To silence a handful of people? To give the automaker lobby a win by saving $5 per a car? I doubt they care so much.
The Left has no reason to do anything other than what they did. Approve it.
It isn't worth fighting about, but again I don't think AM is the safety backstop you think it is. I question your claim that presecing AM radio in EVs costs only $5 as well.
If I were in Congress, strictly from a technical standpoint, I'd be ambivalent before knowing more about cost.
Your "If the Left" analogy is silly. The "Left" isn't pushing to eliminate AM radio. It was deemed incompatible with EVs and the market was making a decision.
I didn't say they were. You're making a straw man argument. I literally said the opposite, that they agreed with Republicans in protecting the safety of Americans.
> I question your claim that presecing AM radio in EVs costs only $5
I'll double down on that point. The radio retails, shipped, for $9. [1] Those are consumer prices on individual, discrete units, with additional plastics, documentation, packaging, separate warehousing costs, freight, etc.
It's obviously much cheaper than $5. I've grossly overestimated the cost of an AM radio.
It would be really nice if the FCC hadn't actively tried to kill low power FM and had promoted more low power AM, in conjunction with the FTC or whomever breaking up the big broadcast monopolies. I think mandating AM receivers should come with a push to significantly democratize parts of the bands so that there's more than just the same old stuff across every frequency.
90% of AM radio stations are owned by ~5 companies pushing a conservative agenda, with a similar disparity in programming (i.e., 90% conservative).
Most of the 10% of non-conservative stations are in progressive markets, where they have little impact. E.g., in San Francisco, the programming split is ~70/30% conservative/liberal.
Here's the (admittedly biased) source, but the numbers would be easily rebutted if untrue:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/talk-radio-by-the-n...
AM radio licenses are a fixed government monopoly, and it's well within the budget of political organizations to subsidize a radio station, so there will be no change in this disparity driven by market solutions.
Assuming the numbers are true, once government policy results in an enduring political bias in media, does the government have any responsibility to mitigate that bias?
Does the government have any obligation or even mandate to reach into product design and require certain features - features unrelated to safety, pollution, energy, or any other generally accepted social good?