Talk:Conservative talk radio

Neutrality?
There's apparently a POV conflict on this page, but nothing has been disputed on the talk page. Whoever is disputing the fairness of this page should state their arguments here and then let their be a decision as to the POV tag. Because simply putting it their isn't right, especially when you can't take it off unless you say why on the talk page, the rules should be the same putting it on.

Doesn't belong
This line, "This is because conservative talk radio gives listeners an alternative to the predominantly left-leaning mainstream media." is completely POV. There is no total agreement that is the reason why conservative radio has been so successful. It could have said "largely because" instead of "this is because". But even then, the article clearly states the other forms of media were liberal so the mention of it is unnecessary, and major POV because it sounds like a liberal not wanting to admit successful conservative radio.

POV
Just look at the comments ^^^ on this very talk page and that is your reason for POV. The article mentions nothing about the other side of things and makes it seem like conservative talk radio is all fun and joy. If someone with a more neutral point of view adds something to this article (with sources), the likely hood of it existing for any amount of time is slim. Now why could that be I wonder? By the way, I did not write the comments above. --milonica (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It Doesn't have to mention the other side, the article is only conservative talk radio. Since there is no significant debate on any one issue in particular, there is no reason to include it in wikipedia. However if you have an issue you would like to address I have no problem trying to incorporate it into the article. The point is just to stop this article from being flooded with liberal talking points and/or an overly done controversy section. Such is the case with limbaugh, foxnews, cnn and other political articles. My hope is that we can keep this article more informational than controversial. But again, if you have an issue you would like to address speak up and I will gladly work with you to get it resolved and into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.24.239 (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted some names from opening paragraph
I got rid of some of the talk radio hosts from the opening paragraph. I don't see any reason why we should list off 10+ names, only a couple big names are fine. (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.151.24.239 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the WP-page reference to the current top radio shows, for Wikipedia readers that are interested. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Fairness Doctrine
I would like to see a discussion about the Fairness Doctrine. This sentence was added by an editor to explain a change: "The Fairness Doctrine never required stations to present -equal- time for opposing viewpoints. It only stipulated that opposing viewpoints must be presented." (I would ask, "By whom?") Notice also that there has not been TALK discussion since 2011, which was five years ago. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conservative talk radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209101821/http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences/ to http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources needed
This article has been tagged for sources since 2010. Where are they? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rush Limbaugh (4377537515).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Rush Limbaugh (4377537515).jpg

Donna a
Is it true in China there putting people not vaccine in cube separated fr there kids or parents like t ask you questions is this true 2600:1000:B100:D493:7534:BD59:7D50:F3E7 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at UCSB supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2014 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)