ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[MikefromDelaware]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Josh, I don't know if you ever listen to Rush or Hannity, but both do put lib callers on. Hannity likes to argue with them and talk over them trying to show them how ignorant they are having such a view,etc. Rush will make his points in a less argumentative style as he tries to reason with the lib hoping for an on air conversion. Granted most of the callers are "ditto heads", but those two shows do not block libs completely. My guess is both Rush's and Hannity's screeners are looking for the most interesting, entertaining, or stupid caller, or some variation to make good radio, but they do probably limit how many libs get on as they don't want the host to be arguing the entire time as they don't really want to make their show a forum to present lib ideas any more than Randi Rhodes or Bill Press want their shows to be a forum for conserv ideas.

To be fair about this, when I listen to NPR talk programming, I hear far fewer conservative callers than I hear lib callers on either Rush or Hannity (now that might be due to far less conservatives even tuning in to NPR than libs tuning in to either Rush or Hannity, or the NPR call screeners could appear to screen out conservative callers - I have no idea, but my guess is more to do with the lack of conservative callers than censoring callers).

The job of the call screener is to find the most interesting callers and screen out the boring ones so that the show will be interesting and entertaining (they don't want listeners getting bored so they don't tune to another station). So if a lib wants to get on Rush or Hannity they simply need to convince the call screener that their call will be entertaining, well spoken, and/ or controversial, etc.

An example, about 12 years ago, Ralph Reed, who was head of what was known then as the "Christian Coalition" appeared as a guest on the Jim Bohannan Show which is a national show from Westwood One, formerly heard on the old Mutual radio network. I am a Christian, and when I got through to the call screener, I told him that I am a Christian who totally disagrees with Ralph Reed and his Christian Coalition. That call screener was salivating and he said, you'll be on with Jim Bo right after this spot break. I was bumped to the head of the line as they could hardly wait to get me on the air with Mr. Reed. We did disagree, but we had a good exchange of ideas. We were both polite and respectful of the other. I made my points and Mr. Reed made his. He didn't change my view and I didn't change his view, but the radio audience got to hear both sides of the discussion as Bohannan gave us a nice block of time to voice our thoughts. In this case, I was treated like a telephone guest appearing on the show for that 8-10 minute segment. It was pretty cool.

I don't believe it is in anyone's best interest to force talk shows to take so many callers, or a percentage of callers, etc, of the opposite view. You could kill a show if that bunch of required callers were so dry and boring that that show loses their audience, which isn't good radio or good business.

 

[joshzz]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

It wouldn't apply to the individual radio stations but to the company producing the syndicated program such as the Rush Limbaugh Show. Programs that are only local market radio station shows would not have to follow such a protocol as they programs LISTEN to the listeners rather than try to manipulate them into adhering to a particular belief system. josh

 

[joshzz]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

The rules would need to apply to both liberal and talk show hosts.

I am aware of Hannity's behavior (is talking over and at times screaming over those that oppose him) & it does makes me wonder, Who decided he should he belongs in broadcasting? .. but that's neither here nor there.... He's proof that you don't need to be professional to be in the limelight. ..

I haven't heard of anyone offering any solution to what is really a problem.. the Answer is not the Fairness Doctrine but my suggestion could be expanded upon and can make a difference.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

As in any business, there are plenty of "idiots" who rise to the top, and radio isn't any different. As the old Bing Crosby song from the 1943 movie Going My Way, "Swinging on a Star" says, "And all the monkeys aren't in a zoo, everyday you'll meet QUITE A FEW" (emphasis mine).

What you suggest seems discriminatory to me (only national shows, local yokel political "preacher" shows exempt), but I'm sure the lawyers would make big bucks fighting it probably all the way up to the Supreme Court. I just don't see such a plan being accepted. I'm sorry (no offense intended), but your plan has a Soviet Union KGB feel to it. I may not like much of what Rush/Hannity/Beck say during their daily tirades, but I defend their right to say it. Last time I checked, my radio as does all other radios have an ON/OFF button or switch and a station selector or dial (depending on how old your radio is). No one is forced to listen to any talk show be it liberal, conservative, religious, or topical, etc.

There are many days when I can't find anything of interest to listen to on the radio AM or FM, so then I put on audio books or my own music CD's. It is what it is. I've learned to find alternatives to radio when radio doesn't meet my listening needs or wants. You may have to do the same. Find some audio books that interest you (there are both lib and conserv audio books available for free at your local library plus novels and other non-fiction stuff plus all sorts of music CD too).

Why only target talk radio (that is predominately conservative generally with far fewer lib shows other than NPR and a few lib shows like Bill Press, Randi Rhodes, and Ed Schultz, etc), why not TV? Of course, other than the Fox News Channel most of the TV news/talk/commentary shows on ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, and CNN lean left. So maybe there is more balance than one might think when considering both radio/TV. So Rush/Hannity may rule the AM radio airwaves, but on TV and Cable TV the liberal point of view is the predominate view expressed. Far more people spend time, especially at night watching TV than listening to the radio). So, in a strange way, the system does have balance. It may not be as balanced as you'd like, but it's far from NeoCon heaven on the airwaves any more than it also isn't Lib heaven on the airwaves. Both points of view are battling for each and every listener/viewer as it should be in a free market of ideas. I just can't agree that the government should regulate how a national talk show works in terms of what callers it puts on the air. The system isn't perfect, but in its own way, it does work.

So even though Rush/Hannity are the two most popular talk radio shows on AM radio in the US, that also means that generally, their voices are heard by older listeners, the young generally do not listen to AM, but prefer FM, if even that, (they really prefer IPODS, IPHONES, ONline stuff, etc. FM talk seems to not be as political generally, but more along the lines of PG rated version of Howard Sterns type format, which does appeal more to those younger demos. Also sports talk appeals more to the younger demos. Rush/Hannity is their parents talk radio. Remember cool marches on.

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

One would think that conservative hosts do not allow liberal callers on the air at all, and that is not true. I'd think it would pretty boring for any host to have only callers who agree all day. Rush years ago did liberal caller hours.

I don't understand the idea that some seem to have, that there are thousands of liberal callers waiting to get through to conservative talk shows and (assuming they don't go into name-calling mode the first ten seconds), they would decimate the host, and all those conservative listeners would be exclaiming "Oh my God, Martha!. Bigger government IS better!" and run, not walk, to re-register as Democrats. Or somehow if conservative stations were forced to air liberal hosts who presumably would "bring those ignorant right wingers to their senses" they would get "converts".

Whether it's a fairness doctrine or requiring producers to log callers, do you really think only liberals would be running stopwatches on conservative radio hosts? No, conservatives will be running stopwatches on NBC news as well. There is no shortage of liberalism and liberal values available. When I can't watch the Weather Channel without being lectured about Global Warming, there's something to be said about getting away from it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Whether it's a fairness doctrine or requiring producers to log callers, do you really think only liberals would be running stopwatches on conservative radio hosts? No, conservatives will be running stopwatches on NBC news as well. There is no shortage of liberalism and liberal values available. When I can't watch the Weather Channel without being lectured about Global Warming, there's something to be said about getting away from it.

I think you have just demonstrated why the FCC (or any other group vested with authority to clean up the mess) can never achieve harmony by forcing fairness.

Who gets to write the specifications for what is good and evil? Who gets to write the specifications for what is conservative? Who gets to write the specifications for what is liberal?

It would appear, from the experience of the last 20 or 30 years, that elected politicians create big government, without regard to a label of conservative or liberal. I observe liberals who are "save the planet" folks, and I observe conservative who are "save the planet" folks.

Sorting the sheep from the goats is an impossible, thankless task.

Maybe we need we simply need a "Bureau to Measure Warm and Fuzzy". I observe people around me who get this look of pain on their face at the mention of Limbaugh whether they are conservative or liberal. They simply do not admire human beings who are divisive, harsh, name-callers and bashers. The same people, conservative or liberal, dislike Oberman for the same reason. I also find there are people who cannot stomach "kissy-face, lets make nice" discussion and conversation. The young males of our species are prone to want to follow radio personalities who are so tart that their saliva is regulated toxic material. Thus we have morning shows with shock-jocks. Thus we have political talk shows both liberal and conservative that require we lime the turf after every broadcast. And I gather the people doing sports-talk have to wear football and hockey pads when in the studio.

So what is it that we REALLY need to regulate, water-down and detox. The average citizen cannot intelligently define the difference between liberal and conservative so how will they know when the FCC has created balance in the industry?

 

[radioplayer]

This is a wonderful discussion and I've enjoyed all the views expressed for the most part. Having said that, I think that there are a few places where I think things got side-tracked. To be clear, the FCC has not had a regulation regarding the content of PROGRAMMING for quite some time, if ever. The old FD was in effect, a "balance of opposing views" related to a community topic or issue of controversy in the COL.

Creating a log of callers and then cherry-picking them (my phrase meaning that the producer is going to spice up the show with these kinds of callers) would never qualify as a satisfaction of FD. To be clearer to my point on this, the supposed 'calls' on many of these shows are totally manipulated and re-edited using Vox Pro (or other audio editor) and desceptive in my view most of the time. It makes for good, controlled + entertaining radio (like Rush, etc.,) but it is a far cry off from any kind of FD type programming.

A very good point was made regarding the market forces and how the market determines pgms on given stations, etc. While this concept is true for most things, it cannot be said quite like that for the Public's airwaves. The same could be said (for example) when we provide mass transit in just about any larger city. It really doesn't 'make money', so therefore, we should not provide for it.....after all the market forces is in play.....so, why do we do this? We do it for the greater good for those who are unable to own their own vehicles; we do it because it is one more way to provide for the mass transportation needs etc., because it is BETTER for our community to provide for this service as opposed to not having it.

The same has to be said for public spectrum and our radio frequencies. What's needed today at the FCC for broadcasters is an upgraded FD that requires xx% of real community service pgmming, which could include a talk type caller show, etc., If one says that "they don't have to do this on the I-net, then broadcast there. If you want to be on terrestrial radio, play by the rules. If not, start your own newspaper, where you don’t have to adhere to the rules when using the public’s airwaves.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Radioplayer's idea of requiring some % of broadcast time being devoted to public service for the COL, which I believe was the standard years ago, sounds like a good idea.

 

[gr8oldies]

You can make stations carry public service programming, even in good dayparts. You just can't make anyone listen. I can push that button quicker than you can say "public interest, convenience and neccessity"

 

[SeanMGilbow]

You can make stations carry public service programming, even in good dayparts. You just can't make anyone listen. I can push that button quicker than you can say "public interest, convenience and neccessity"

I've seen gr8oldies make this type of comment so many times (hundreds, I estimate) that I'm starting to yawn. However, I cannot push a button every time I see such a comment posted.

Radioplayer, who actually has a skin in the game, may be on to something. It's not as if a station can't broadcast live from events that benefit the community and interview key individuals and organizations involved in-between 20-minute-plus sets of favorites.

I believe what Radioplayer proposes could be described in one word: compromise. That's something currently missing nowadays.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

What I recall from years ago, was stations did have to air so many hours per week of public service programming (this usually happened on Sundays, giving free air time to local churches, community groups on public affairs shows (possibly where the idea of having news makers on Sundays discussing the issues started - today the big talking heads have shows for Sunday mornings (Face the Nation, Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday, etc). There wasn't any requirement that the prime radio or TV time be used for public service programming. Even radio networks aired public service programming, and would air Billy Graham's Hour of Decision ( I believe those were free broadcasts back then as I remembering hearing him on NBC Radio and Mutual, and possibly CBS). Today Billy Graham pays, but if I remember correctly then it was considered a public service broadcast, and free to his ministry.

 

[radioplayer]

You can make stations carry public service programming, even in good dayparts. You just can't make anyone listen. I can push that button quicker than you can say "public interest, convenience and neccessity"

Well, I love the example you brought up regarding yourself and that for whatever reason you would not be 'listening'. However, don’t be bamboozled into thinking that is a one-way street! To the contrary! The idea that one or more persons may tune out is certainly there, but the potential that many MORE listeners may just become hooked and tune IN on a regular basis to a well produced show is at least EQUALLY THERE.

Broadcasters may find (like one did in my town some time back) that a well produced PA show actually MADE money $$, covered the FD and was extremely good for the station's PR as a "local hometown station”!

 

[oaktree]

The answer to the Fairness Doctrine --

First, thin the herd. Too many stations saying the same thing, too little true community/local cohesion as it is.

Second, get out of the AM business. "Ancient Modulation." Expand the FM band and make it a "talk band" if need be. Even McDonalds has changed it's "look."

Third, "Let the buyer beware." Rich enough to buy one and operate one successfully? Great. End up losing money and going out of business (as so many do,) you're off the air or out of the marketplace, just like McDonalds or another business. You live your responsibility or you lose your community voice. Want to sell? Great, but the new owner has the same responsibility. You fail, you lose. Keeps radio to a higher standard.

Fourth, limited consolidation across a market platform and across the country. More diversity.

Fifth, limit satellite based syndication no matter the format.

Sixth, no simulcasting. Pick a station to program, get rid of the other or sell it. Fast. Station stays silent until sold for a limited period of time. Don't want the station in your market? Turn it off.

Seventh, no daytimers. Limit Class A FMs. Remove graveyard "local" AMs where not needed. More standardization of station powers, especially on AM. Substantial 60dbu contours better than go better than 10 miles.

Eighth, no-non coms or LPFM / LPAM or Part 15s.

Ninth, no translators.

Tenth, no HD Radio, at least the IBOC way.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Oaktree, I totally disagree with your point about eliminating non-comms and LPFM's, and transalators.

My market, Wilmington DE #76, does not have a Classical, Jazz, or NPR station. Because of non-comms, and translators we have all three. The NPR station from Philly WHYY-FM sends a solid signal into the Wilmington area, the Jazz and Classical non-comm from Philly, WRTI at Temple Univ has a translator in Wilmington so we get a city grade signal and so does Dover with their translator, our state capital 45 miles South of Wilmington as they don't have a Classical or Jazz station if it either. WRTI also has numerous translators in New Jersey and Pennsylvania bringing numerous radio markets Jazz and Classical Music where neither existed before. So there is an example of how under served markets get to have a better selection of stations.

There is a CCM formated station here, WXHL - Christiana DE, that has translators in 5 or 6 states besides the several they spread around in Delaware. They have placed those in markets that do not have a CCM station so they too are bringing that format to areas that do not have such a station. To my way of thinking, what both WRTI and WXHL are doing is not a bad thing.

 

[TheBigA]

Oaktree: Too many negative rules. No this, no that. You're worse than a nun. Just say no.

Communication is about freedom and speech. Compare American broadcasting rules to other countries sometimes. We call ourselves a free country, but we have more laws than most other countries. We're a bunch of control freaks.

 

[CaptBob92]

Your discussion lacks a historical background. As someone who started in the broadcasting biz in 1965 let me offer a
little reality here.

1) A good half of my radio career was spent while the Fairness Docterine was in place. I owned a station which carried alot of controversial talk programing and at NO TIME was the fairness docterine a problem. Why? simple, the term " Equal time" never appears in the policy ANYWHERE. That term was fabricated by the media to explain the policy to the public in simple terms but that term is patently wrong. The actual term used in the FCC policy was " Equal Opportunity" and the commission determined that equal opportunity DID NOT MEAN equal time relative to length or placement which means Rush could be on the air from noon to 3pm daily and Randy Rhodes could be on from 11pm to midnight and that would qualify as equal opportunity. In effect the fairness docterine would not force any station to remove one host to avoid puting another on. Come on now, how many stations are making money at night when they could run the opposite side of their popular day host?

I believe the real reason stations don't carry both sides of the political spectrum is they fear that if they carry any liberal talk WHAT SO EVER, sponsors will drop off the Conservative shows , try to preasure them to drop any liberal talk and generally create a situation in which the station has to decide which political point of view to carry and not allow the rest to speak. I've seen it happen, been in meetings when that decision is made. It's really a case of ownership not wanting to stand up and present balance.

2) There is a need for the fairness docterine to return in view of the many voices that want an outlet to be heard. I don't buy the argument that there are plenty of other outlets. Let's look at those so called outlets: LPFM? not yet, look at all the applications and how the NAB lobbied Congress to cut back in the number of LPFM channels available using the phoney 3rd adjacent channel interferrence claim which when the FCC study was complete showed it was phoney after all. Thanks NAB for spending all our hard earned tax dollars on something we already knew.BTW if your not an engineer you probably don't know that the FCC has been granting wavers of the third channel rule for full power stations for years!! I didn't hear anyone in Congress complaign about that policy. Obviously, there are alot of LPFM would be owners who want but can't get their voice heard through LPFM


3) What about webb casting on line? It didn't take long for the Federal Government to implement new laws to tax webb casters oh and by the way, the tax was RETROACTIVE. Who in their right mind would continue to broadcast in any form while not knowing how much you were going to pay for what you had been doing for free the past few years?

4) oK OK, lets forget radio and go to LPTV oh I forgot, most cable companys won't carry an LP after the cable TV act said you had to locate your antenna no further than a few miles from the head end to get an adaquite signal there.

I don't have to tell you about the print media and how it's dieing but that's even more reason to add diversity opinions to broadcasting

Bottom line here is there are alot of people who want a voice on radio or tv but can't even buy the time, get a license, afford webb casting that's why you need the Fairness Docterine plain and simple.

 

[TheBigA]

Bottom line here is there are alot of people who want a voice on radio or tv but can't even buy the time, get a license, afford webb casting that's why you need the Fairness Docterine plain and simple.

Tough. A "fairness doctrine" won't give anyone more access to radio or TV. It will just mean that broadcasting won't deal with controversial issues any more. Why? Because if they do anything but pitch the ball down the middle, they'll be obligated to provide airtime to others.

Everybody wants a voice, but no one wants to listen. And a fairness doctrine won't make anyone listen. If no one's listening, there's no advertising, and we all know what no advertising means.

 

[CaptBob92]

Again, a little reality, if I was making money with Rush and Hennety and Beck I sure wouldn't drop them off the air, instead , I would just give the guys who wanted to express the other side a five minute chance at night when I couldn't sell the time anyhow,,,and I'd be fullfilling the docterine! Oh and BTW, under the fairness docterine if a host also mentioned the other side's possision, as Rush and Hennity and Beck do to show how silly that possision might be, that would qualify for equal opportunity!!

Isn't the opposition to the fairness docterine really just because some people don't want to hear both sides?

 

[TheBigA]

Isn't the opposition to the fairness docterine really just because some people don't want to hear both sides?

No. It's because they don't want the federal government to tell them what to do.

People will hear what they want to hear. If they don't want to hear both sides, they'll simply shut your station off, and go to a blog where they can hear what they want. You can't regulate or force people to hear both sides if they don't want to hear it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I just went back to the beginning of this topic to see where we started. I see we have basically run in circles and we are not far from our point of departure.

The terminology "Fairness Doctrine" is damaged goods... as a name. Put those two words adjacent to each other in any sentence and there can be no productive communication among people who want to have conversation about radio broadcasting.

Our friend TheBigA has just posted a statement which is a great big block of truth that clutters the road we are trying to travel

You can't regulate or force people to hear both sides if they don't want to hear it.

And right beside his big stone boulder in our path, let me plop down another very large rock:

If our little 235 year old experiment in self-government is going to survive.... no, make that thrive... then we have to have people who are on a mission to GET, not FORCE, but encourage, compel people to hear both sides of issues whether they want to or not. If we don't, then we eventual devolve into a civilization of mob rule like we assume existed in the stone age. Or empires that ruled so many people during the last 2,000 years.

The public school system is supposed to contribute to that getting, encouraging and compelling.

The newspaper has been an excellent tool in that effort but is practically on life support when we really need it.

During the "glory days" of our beloved medium that we discuss here, it was understood that in return for being granted occupancy of a piece of spectrum, it was your civic duty to help get, encourage and compel society while you were making a buck. Today we face what appears to be a majority opinion of those who are broadcasting, who want to be broadcasting, and like to be fans of broadcasting that "civic duty" is equally as distasteful as a part of our language as are those other two words: "fairness doctrine".

So what do we propose to hand to our grandchildren and our great grandchildren? A stone-age empire?

Help me zip my head back in place just above my shoulders. In this 21st Century view of broadcasting "unplugged from civic duty"... to whom... to what institutions have we decided to hand the responsibility of getting, encouraging and compelling humans to actually shake hands and talk to each other and find common ground on issues where we disagree?

And explain to me why we... the owners, the participants and the fans of this thing that some have called audio based communications do not want to be a part of the solution?

I haven't given a lot of thought to what I would like carved on my tombstone, but I do know one thing I DON'T want it to say: "He didn't give a damn!"