Right-wing narrative dominance?
The Left continues to rage against consumer choice instead of competing in the marketplace of ideas.
Back in the 1990's, Rush Limbaugh said this on his radio program in response to Democrats calling for balance to his program: "I don't need equal time. I am equal time!" Limbaugh and his millions of listeners argued that to get the Democratic narrative, you could watch NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN, you could read the New York Times or the Washington Post, and you could follow Hollywood movies. Limbaugh, at the time, was one of the few places where you could get a conservative narrative.
Nonetheless, Leftists repeatedly made efforts (halfhearted though they may have been at times) to reinstate the so-called "fairness doctrine" mandating that the opinion of one side had to be balanced by the opinion of the other. This was called the "Hush Rush" law, because it would make Limbaugh's show impossible. President Reagan throwing the "fairness doctrine" on the ash heap of history is what made Limbaugh's show possible.
Technology changed the game in the early 2000's, and then again in the 2010's, and then again in the 2020's, each drawing howls of protest from Leftists and Democrats. (There is overlap to these eras, obviously.) In the early 2000's, it was the blogosphere that led to much hand-wringing about "editorial control." In the 2010's social media was the Left's bugaboo because now the great unwashed masses can say whatever they want! Democrats demanded social media crack down, so they did - on the masses and on the President of these United States. In the last five years, the Left has a new bugaboo: Podcasts.
Back in the 1990's and 2000's, before the podcast boom, one could at least make an argument for regulating talk radio. The airwaves are owned by the public, and when television and radio stations license specific frequencies they have reasonable content guidelines. This is why you cannot have hardcore pornography on broadcast television and you cannot have people dropping the F bomb every other word on the radio. Using the "public airwaves" premise to advance the "fairness doctrine" was a cover for blatantly partisan, illegal censorship, but there was at least a pretense there.
There is no such argument about podcasts, which are not broadcast over the air. You have to use your podcast app to find whatever feed you want, subscribe to it, and listen. (Unless you are trying to listen to a censored podcast on Apple.) It actually takes effort that did not exist with television and radio.
Sure enough, Leftists are complaining that because conservative podcasts have so many listeners, the right wing has "narrative dominance." (Whether Joe Rogan is conservative is up for debate, but for the sake of argument let's accept the premise.) Media Matters is agitating for this "imbalance" to be "addressed." But how should this be "addressed," exactly? Government regulation? The reason conservatives have more listeners is because more people choose to listen to them. Leftists are "pro-choice," are they not? This is not broadcast television, where you have to make deals for limited time slots and either pay for time or get stations to pay for your content. Create a show people want to listen to and they will listen to it. Anyone can create a podcast right now, for a small fee or for free. Obviously, Leftists have failed to do that well enough to attract a similar audience.
Monopolies hate competition. The mainstream media hated Limbaugh, they hate social media, and they hate podcasts. They cannot stand to see dissenting views get a larger view. At each stage of the media revolution over the last 40 years, conservatives have embraced new technology to get their message out and the audience followed. Leftists have complained the whole time, and have even attempted to get government to illegally censor opposing views. The problem, though, is not the media or the "narrative dominance." The problem is the message.