Read a book.

PS: I was alive in the 80s, have done research in deregulation and its impact on media. I’m astute enough to know that, despite the hopes of other Reagan Republicans, Trump is not an aberration in conservatism: he is your legacy, the result of 40+ years of demonization of govt, others.

I have!

Not the correct one, apparently.

Also Pickard, America’s Battle for Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Liberalism and the Future of Media Reform. I’m not saying any of the above *caused* right-wing talk radio. But the creation of an infrastructure for it absolutely has connection to the end of ownership rules, Fairness Doctrine.

The ownership rules were what really mattered. Until then, Limbaugh was just a local phenom, like Bob Grant in NYC and others.

Try Barnard, Hacking Hybrid Media, specifically “Channels of Distortion: The End of the Fairness Doctrine and the Resurgence of (Domestic) Information Warfare” and Clogston, “The Repeal of the Fairness Doctrine and the Irony of Talk Radio,” Journal of Policy History 28:2 (2016).

Except that talk radio predated Rush; what mattered more was the collapse of AM as a music outlet, which opened the door to talkers who were cheap programming.

Collapse of AM music important (though it survived into the late 80s; my dad had a K Car with only an AM band and found lots of oldies stations, hence my memories of him driving while miming cracking a whip and singing along to “Mule Train”). But shift in ownership rules… 1/2

… and end of Fairness Doctrine helped create infrastructure, political cover for networks of political radio. It didn’t *create* political talk radio, it fostered its spread.

This makes no sense. At best, you could argue (I think) that some stations were less jumpy about political talkers, but offensive right-wingers on radio long predated Rush and were there during the golden days of the Fairness Doctrine.

BTW, saw shameful amount of shoeless feet on transatlantic flights a few weeks ago. We might disagree on talk radio, but on this issue we are in lockstep.

In coach I assume, among the unwashed

It does make sense, and I think we might be more in agreement than it seems. You’re focused on content, I’m pointing to *spread* of content. End of FD allows monovocal content; ownership rules allow that to spread.

You're still stuck on the idea that the end of the FD allowed "monovocal content." That's just wrong. Syndication is what gave Limbaugh his power. But again, it's possible that without the FD, some station owners might have been preemptively hesitant. But that was solved by *buying* them.