Article from the Seattle PI : Fairness Doctrine for all

[evnlee]

"...under the so-called Fairness Doctrine that the Federal Communications Commission pursued until 1987, many broadcasters observed that government regulation actually stifled the free market in opinion and effectively politics to little-watched schedules on Sunday mornings. It was known informally as the public affairs ghetto. Stations presented only as much public debate as they needed to secure renewal of their public licenses."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/print...ce.com/opinion/323156_fairnessdoctrine11.html

 

[gr8oldies]

You could even extend it to things like TV sitcoms (most of which are written and produced by liberals). That Murphy Brown episode that blasted Dan Quayle? Yep, there's have to be a conservative sitcom that followed. The Simpsons make fun of Republicans? They'd have to make fun of Democrats in equal numbers. Leno's monologue..better be balanced because we can't have those people who get their news from that monologue to not have jokes hurled at both sides. Sympathetic gay charachters...guess we have to have an equal number of unsympathetic gay charachters.

If FD comes into play, don't think its only the left who'll have stopwatches and calculators.

 

[kaufcom]

"...under the so-called Fairness Doctrine that the Federal Communications Commission pursued until 1987, many broadcasters observed that government regulation actually stifled the free market in opinion and effectively politics to little-watched schedules on Sunday mornings. It was known informally as the public affairs ghetto. Stations presented only as much public debate as they needed to secure renewal of their public licenses."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/print...ce.com/opinion/323156_fairnessdoctrine11.html

I don't know what this guy is talking about. The only stations that programmed the public affairs ghetto. were TV stations. They didn't do so because of the fairness doctrine, but ironically to fulfill licensing requirements to provide local public affairs content. These requirements were essentially removed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This article you are citing is just a guest column by a right wing writer.

He goes on the run all the talking points of fairness doctrine critics. He states that the fairness doctrine should be re-enacted so that conservatives can secure equal time on other media

Let's start with that most public of federal broadcast entities, National Public Radio. Increasingly, its sponsors range from foundations with an ideological ax to grind to law firms and national teachers unions. Conservatives find that stories they care about just don't make it onto NPR schedules. When the rare conservative gets invited to participate on an NPR issues panel, somehow there are two or three liberals facing him, with a liberal host recognizing the speakers. ...Next, the new Fairness Doctrine should apply to television, including not just PBS, but also CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and MSNBC, as well as the FOX channel. When newscasters seek legally required balance on a given issue, let's see if they can be persuaded to find the most articulate conservative -- not the most egregious and unpopular -- to reply to the liberal voice.

 

[evnlee]

"It is never going to happen, you say. Well, OK, but let's just open up the fairness issue as wide as possible and see where the debate takes us.

It should be exciting, especially when we have congressional hearings that extend the concept of political and cultural "fairness" still further -- to Hollywood.

Or maybe the left would be smart to drop the matter altogether."

 

[Radio_Realist]

I don't know what this guy is talking about. The only stations that programmed the public affairs ghetto. were TV stations.

Then you weren't listening to radio much on Sunday mornings.

You're also observing the combined effects of two different but conflicting regulations. Radio stations (for that matter, all broadcasting stations) were required to do two things. One was to present programing "in the public interest", which was interpreted as meaning "serious things people needed to hear and/or see", and in doing so, they also had to be "fair", meaning that all points of view on a given topic needed to be aired.

The combination of mandated "public interest" programming that was also "fair" made it almost impossible to create programming that was interesting or appealing to the audience. So, stations would put all of their mandated programming on the air on Sunday morning, when most of the audience was either sleeping or at church.

The growth of news/talk radio started when programmers realized that if the took a program from the Sunday Morning public affairs ghetto and allowed the host to have a distinctive point of view, that could attract an audience that advertisers would want to reach. A very few broadcasters were daring enough to risk FCC sanctions for not being "fair" enough, which lead to the early news/talk programs that have been mentioned in many threads in here. Once the FCC removed the sword of Damocles that was the Fairness Doctrine, Rev 1, then even the timid broadcasters were willing to program controversial talk shows.

As for the "serving the public interest requirement", that other half of the equation one didn't have a dramatic ending. Instead, broadcasters successfully argued that high ratings were proof that the public was satisfied that the programming offered by a station was sufficiently in the public interest. The argument was that if they weren't satisfied, then they wouldn't tune in as much as they did. When you combine that with the huge barriers to entry of buying a transmitter, tower, and other hardware, the number of organizations who'd even consider mounting a license challenge had dwindled to none. That's why broadcasters stopped worrying about programming "nasty medicine" public interest shows that no one wanted to hear but that pressure groups demanded because they thought such shows were good for the public.

 

[kaufcom]

The combination of mandated "public interest" programming that was also "fair" made it almost impossible to create programming that was interesting or appealing to the audience. So, stations would put all of their mandated programming on the air on Sunday morning, when most of the audience was either sleeping or at church.

To the extent that any radio operators were offering local "public interest" programming on Sunday mornings, they were not worrying about the Fairness Doctrine. There only concern was how much time did they have to give to meet their license requirement.

A very few broadcasters were daring enough to risk FCC sanctions for not being "fair" enough, which lead to the early news/talk programs that have been mentioned in many threads in here.

Not few. Probably over 400 talk shows offered by more different owners then the 2,000 stations offering talk today.

Once the FCC removed the sword of Damocles that was the Fairness Doctrine, Rev 1, then even the timid broadcasters were willing to program controversial talk shows.

No. once music programming fled the AM band, (in the mid 80's) desparate owners had to come up with something else. Cheap syndicated political and sports talk, Spanish, and religious programming provided the answer. Ironically, the only categories that have grown in the last ten years are sports talk, Spanish, and religion. Political talk is flat.

broadcasters stopped worrying about programming "nasty medicine" public interest shows that no one wanted to hear but that pressure groups demanded because they thought such shows were good for the public.

This never was is still is not a big deal. Licensing requirements, were (for most part) thrown out in 1996. At that time broadcasters convinced the regulators that couldn't remain in business with localism, ownership caps, minority ownership, etc. Well, since that time localism is way down, there are way fewer people working in radio, there are 34% fewer owners, radio stocks are down, radio ratings are down. Sounds like the deregulation strategy was a bust.

 

[Radio_Realist]

To the extent that any radio operators were offering local "public interest" programming on Sunday mornings, they were not worrying about the Fairness Doctrine.

As someone whose first job in radio was on a Sunday Morning public affairs ghetto program aired on the #1 Top 40 station in the market, I can tell you with first-hand authority that you are wrong. There was significant pressure from station management to make sure that if any opinion was expressed about any political issue, the opposite opinion also had to be expressed. And, if neither opinion was expressed, that was even better.

Not few. Probably over 400 talk shows offered by more different owners then the 2,000 stations offering talk today.

I'm sorry, but 400 individual local talk local shows aren't very many, especially when most of them were lightweight talk about UFO's, health issues, and other non-controversial topics. I remember one of the earliest talk shows on the post-network era radio -- Ed and Wendy King's Party Line. It was an excellent, and very popular talk show. And in the decade plus that it was on the air, there was never a discussion of anything remotely controversial.

You seem to be working under the assumption that talk is talk, and as long as there is no music being played, then it's news/talk format radio. It doesn't work that way. There were not 400 controversial, political based talk shows on the air in the time period you describe.

Well, since that time localism is way down, there are way fewer people working in radio, there are 34% fewer owners, radio stocks are down, radio ratings are down. Sounds like the deregulation strategy was a bust.

On the contrary. That was hardly a bust. Radio lost listeners to alternate technologies. But, thanks to deregulation, they were still able to remain in business. Without deregulation, localism would still be way down. There would still be fewer people working in radio. There would still be fewer owners. And there would be a plethora of dark stations no longer broadcasting at all.

 

[kaufcom]

As someone whose first job in radio was on a Sunday Morning public affairs ghetto program aired on the #1 Top 40 station in the market, I can tell you with first-hand authority that you are wrong. There was significant pressure from station management to make sure that if any opinion was expressed about any political issue, the opposite opinion also had to be expressed. And, if neither opinion was expressed, that was even better.

I''ll try one more time. The "public affairs ghetto" had nothing to do with Fairness Doctrine. It was (and still is) community service programming to keep the station in compliance with their localism requirements. It has nothing to do with talk radio.

I'm sorry, but 400 individual local talk local shows aren't very many, especially when most of them were lightweight talk about UFO's, health issues, and other non-controversial topics.

Maybe in Pittsburgh, but in most major markets -- e.g. New York, LA, Chicago, and Boston -- there was a lot political talk radio (form the left and right) in Fairness Doctrine era.

Without deregulation, localism would still be way down. There would still be fewer people working in radio. There would still be fewer owners.

That's what we have with de-regulation. We don't what would have happened if Clear Channel didn't have the opportunity to buy up 1,400 stations.

And there would be a plethora of dark stations no longer broadcasting at all.

Really...How do you know this?

 

[justareporter]

As someone whose first job in radio was on a Sunday Morning public affairs ghetto program aired on the #1 Top 40 station in the market, I can tell you with first-hand authority that you are wrong. There was significant pressure from station management to make sure that if any opinion was expressed about any political issue, the opposite opinion also had to be expressed. And, if neither opinion was expressed, that was even better.

Not every "non-music" show is a talk show. some are interview programs, others are just boring. Sounds like this was the last of the three, directed in part by bad management.

I'm sorry, but 400 individual local talk local shows aren't very many, especially when most of them were lightweight talk about UFO's, health issues, and other non-controversial topics

What markets were you listening to? Obviously NONE of the majors, where political talk thrived during the fairness doctrine days. Maybe out in Ambridge all they talked about was the price of pigs knuckles at the local deli, and the latest cure for the common cold, but in the 'Burg back in the 70's they were talking about the closing of the mills and how the unions had sold 'em out.

Without deregulation, localism would still be way down. There would still be fewer people working in radio. There would still be fewer owners.

And you know this how? What empirical data do you have to suggest this wild asertion other than your own particular bias? ? Right now localism is a distant dream. What makes anyone think that deregulation made radio any better when CC can own 1400 stations and run a bunch of others through LMA's.

There would still be fewer people working in radio. There would still be fewer owners. And there would be a plethora of dark stations no longer broadcasting at all.

Again, there is no evidence to support this wild generalization. Stations have gone dark with and without deregulation.

And just to ask the question: what is the difference between a station being nothing but a downlink for syndicated programming...with no local news, traffic, weather or public affairs programming and a dark station? How many people can this little one stick 1/2 watt wonder employ anyway? Maybe the broadcasting world would be ever so slightly better off if some of these barely alive stations did go dark and took some of the clutter off the airwaves.

Just a thought.

 

[Radio_Realist]

It's amazing how an enforced absence of one week over an authority's misunderstanding of (or possible disagreement with) a post can make one very, very reticent about posting anything that might provoke said authority. That same reluctance to do anything that might provoke a second, more strenous response is almost identical to the attitude that the majority of broadcasters had regarding controversial political programming during the days of the original Fairness Doctrine.

No amount of rhetoric about how much political programming there might have been in the days of the original Fairness Doctrine, especially inaccurate observations that attempt to equate a midnight-to-dawn show on a single small market station with any of the current crop of prime time syndicated programs on the air today, will alter the fact that the threat of the new Fairness Doctrine, Rev 2 will be sufficient to reduce the amount of news/talk on the air to about the same level as the amount of Big Band music on the air.

what is the difference between a station being nothing but a downlink for syndicated programming...with no local news, traffic, weather or public affairs programming and a dark station?

The difference is that the former provides listeners access to some of the best radio programming available, featuring the best talent, along with professional production and content. The former provides the listening public with what it wants to hear. The latter provides nothing.

So let me ask you a question. What is the difference between a station that broadcasts local information that no one tunes in to listen to because it's delivered by amateurs, novices, and third-rate hacks who don't have the talent to move out of Smallville, USA and a station that no one listens to because it isn't on the air?

 

[justareporter]

there are two suitable answers: first, not all radio stations are populated by "amateurs, novices, and third-rate hacks who don't have the talent to move out of Smallville, USA ." I've known no small number of quite professional individuals both in radio and TV that had no interest of moving up. they liked where they were, in many cases were network material but had no cause or reason to move on. Not all happiness is in the big city. Admittedly there are no small number of hacks...but no more so than you will find in large market radio.

Second: small and medium market radio was the (and in TV still is) the bullpen for the large markets. Good talent, whether in radio news, TV news or programming worked out their "act" in the small and medium markets. When the small and medium markets are not bullpens then there is a dearth of real talent...which accurately explains Hannity.

Even Beck worked the small and medium markets.

As to the issue of stations going dark if they are nothing more than satellite downlinks I find no issue. There is plenty of signal carryover from the larger stations in the larger markets for the so-called "best radio programming available." Some of it is, most of it isn't. It's just free...and in this era of deregulation and all-for-profit-and-nothing-else free trumps all.

Some stations should go dark. they provide no local programming, no local news, in fact violate the very reason for their existence.

Someone should pull the plug and free the airwaves from signal repeaters.