Boxer and Clinton want 'legislative fix' for talk radio

[evnlee]

I might suggest that the call for "balance" is more about the call for a free and open discussion of issues rather than the current one page sheet of music. Please be so kind as to raise the level of discussion beyond that of simple political contests.

Are you simply calling to the universe to grant the sort of "balance" you describe, or do you have in mind some specific power or entity who would be empowered to bring about the balance that you seek? And, if you have some specific power or entity in mind who would grant this "balance", that wouldn't happen to be the Federal government of the United States of America, would it? Because if you want the government to have to power to enforce "balance", then there is no possible way to discuss said "balance" without discussing the politicians who run against each other in contested elections who would, if elected, have that enforcement power.

Can you not see that there can be no discussion of some power or entity enforcing your idea of "balance" without discussion the process by which the people who wield that power or who comprise that entity are selected?

ahh yes, RR.. You 'get it'. Touche

Why do all the progressives that claimed this was a 'straw man' argument ( Hello? Durbin? Gore? RFK? Et Al?) now seem so convinced that it's suddenly about 'ownership caps' and not 'silencing' conservative talk? C'mon, you guys: fess up.

When conservative hosts said this would happen a decade ago: you guys rolled your eyes....Now, it's occurring exactly how they said it would go down... :

 

[justareporter]

To Mr. Realist et.al: Actually I would prefer if the government NOT get involved if only because I find most politicians no better (and sometimes significantly worse) than most talk show hosts. All appear clueless. that in fact would be the "stick." Government would get involved if and only if ownership failed to act. I'm not interested in "exact" balance....after all ...are all conservatives libertarians or are all libertarians conservatives? If not, how does one differentiate the two for the purpose of balance? The courts use a much better barometer, the so-called "reasonable person" rule. If we stopped being jerks about all of this and started acting like "reasonable" people my suspicion is the answers would be clear. the problem is we have so Balkanized our audience and ourselves that may not be so easy, but that is the goal.

There are some on this board and on the air who would only put an adjective next to a noun to get someone angry. No one wants to silence conservative talk. I'd just like to hear more differeing views. It is too bad we are now calling ourselves "conservatives" or "liberals" instead of "reasonable, thinking individuals."

 

[Radio_Realist]

No one wants to silence conservative talk.

That is only an accurate statement if you exclude Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, Dennis Kuchinic, and all of the other Democrat politicians who have publicly stated in multiple venues and forums that they do want to silence conservative talk from consideration. If you exclude all those who do want to silence conservative talk radio, even if it means also sacrificing liberal talk radio as well to achieve that goal, then of those who remain, then you'll find no one who wants to silence conservative talk.

Perhaps you don't want to silence conservative talk, but you are not everyone. You are someone, but not the only one who exists.

 

[justareporter]

I'm not sure Pelosi and clinto have a clue what they want. Neither has thoroughly impressed me. Then again, neither has the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

We're back (I think) again to the notion of ownership as a steward and not just owner of the license. Maybe if some of the owners (large and small) would actually look to "balance" their airwaves both Pelosi, Clinton and Lott would go away back under their respective rocks on this issue.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Maybe if some of the owners (large and small) would actually look to "balance" their airwaves both Pelosi, Clinton and Lott would go away back under their respective rocks on this issue.

That's exactly what Pelosi, Clinton, et aux all want. They want the owners to take the safe route, and "voluntarily" cancel all controversial programming in favor of non-controversial programming. After all, flipping a news/talk station over to "Jack" or "Bob" sure eliminates any question of not being "balanced". And it guarantees no challenges over license renewals.

 

[raccoonradio]

Then let's tell the NY Times to not offer any controversial content in its paper. Don't express
political opinions...not unless they give equal weight to a conservative opinion. Fairness...
(The FD= a violation of freedom of the press and the FCC has said so, such as recently when
some folks complained about talk stations only carrying conservative shows)

Con. talk radio has mentioned what was in Bush's immigration bill and people rallied to DEFEAT
it (for now). That's right folks: conservative talk listeners, jilted by their own alleged conservative
president and Republican-In-Name-Only legislators, helped to put a halt to a dangerous bill
and talk radio may well have helped out.

This could be why Hillary and Boxer are for a "Fairness Doctrine". Do they just want to shut up
the Rush/Hannity/Ingraham crowd?

 

[raccoonradio]

>>Can you not see that there can be no discussion of some power or entity enforcing your idea of "balance" without discussion the process by which the people who wield that power or who comprise that entity are selected?

The same people who object to the idea of monitoring phone calls by potential terrorists have no problem
with having people "monitor" talkradio. They're the government, you can trust em!

 

[justareporter]

Maybe I am living in a parallel universe...or maybe a whole lot of others are...fact is I know I never suggested and end to controversial radio....just a return to having a variety of opinions.

And please remind me how that could be bad or anything less than responsible.

 

[evnlee]

Maybe I am living in a parallel universe...or maybe a whole lot of others are...fact is I know I never suggested and end to controversial radio....just a return to having a variety of opinions.

And please remind me how that could be bad or anything less than responsible.

How many times do we have to say this?

The problem is not that they scream 'balance and variety of opinions' in all mediums....only 'talk radio'!

They dont address TV~ which is the public airwaves as well....All of the recent discussion has been centered around TALK RADIO. Where was this discussion for the last 20 years when every other TV news outlet except Fox News was blindingly biased towards the other side? Where was the Republican Congressmen complaining about 'insuring the public service' on NBC,CBS,ABC news?! Cite for me a 'legislative fix' offered up by the GOP. You can't. Instead, what occured is that the vacuum created by not having 'both sides' accurately presented led to the success and formation of Talk Radio and Fox News...

Now, your guys want Talk Radio to be 'diverse'....Well, how about the other mediums? Why single out talk radio?

And where's the 'strawman' argument? Are you guys going to say Kerry is not interested in looking into a 'legislative fix' for the medium that helped defeat him in 2004?

 

[Radio_Realist]

And please remind me how that could be bad or anything less than responsible.

Because any call for such a thing implies that someone, somewhere is going to enforce it. Even if it isn't enforced but happened by some sort of magic, it would still make for boring, bland and ratings-free broadcasting, which would also kill talk radio as we know it.

 

[raccoonradio]

>>boring, bland and ratings-free broadcasting, which would also kill talk radio as we know it.

Gardening shows, not political talk..

 

[evnlee]

where do we draw the line?

Whats about Salem: they are a private syndicator that eschews a Christian belief.....In the interests of being 'fair', should the government mandate that they carry some 'athiest' programming? How do you 'splain that to the stockholders? 'Public interests'?!

Should 'urban talk' radio stations be forced to carry Korean or Spanish content? In most markets, where there are enough Koreans or Mexicans to support a format like that, they already exist.

 

[raccoonradio]

Exactly! How about Air America being forced to carry Hannity, Savage, et al? You want fair...

 

[gr8oldies]

It doesn't matter if you legislate some kind of magic 50/50 mix of conservative and liberal opinion, or you use the "reasonabl person" approach, somebody, somewhere has to sit there with a stopwatch and caculator, decide if each opinion uttered on the public airwaves is "liberal" or "conservative" and program as such. If the FCC isn't monitoring, the station owners and their lawyers will have to. You know activist groups on all sides will be.

If you want to hear "diverse views" go seek them out! They are everywhere! Go to ichael Moore's latest movie, visit Democratic Underground, listen to NPR, whatever. My feeling isn't that you want to hear liberals on stations that now air conservative talk, you want to force the people who listen to conservative talk to listen to liberals, and "see the light" and "the error of their ways". How patronizing!

 

[justareporter]

Stopwatches are unnecessary. A little common sense goes a long way. So-called conservatives don't need to listen to liberals, any more than liberals have to listen to conservatives.

But they should. It is how you learn what the other person thinks...assuming they actually do. Unfotunately most people these days only listen to people who agree with them. In fact you should listen to the people you disagree with if only to understand them better. What a concept...understanding and tolerance.

The comment by someone about "gardening show" was at best simplistic. Please do better next time. I'm sure you can.

As for news...I'm not even going there. I'm not going to change your opinion regardless of how incorrect you happen to be.

 

[mobile-exradiodj]

Exactly! How about Air America being forced to carry Hannity, Savage, et al? You want fair...

If Hannity & Ed Schultz went after each after for three hours on the same show, it would make great radio. If Savage & Stephanie Miller had no holds barred for three hours, I would listen. Heated debate and personal insults, what a concept. Maybe...that's only for the chatboards.

 

[Radio_Realist]

So-called conservatives don't need to listen to liberals, any more than liberals have to listen to conservatives.

But they should.

So, who is going to enforce your personal idea of what's best for everyone? Since justareporters says listening to someone you disagree with is good for you, rather like eating your vegetables whether you like them or not, who shall be the nanny who forces people to do what justareporter thinks is best for them?

Tell me, do you go onto the forums for different music formats and try to tell everyone that music format stations need to play a more diverse selection of music because it's good for the listeners?

Modern broadcasting is based on the idea of programming, not programs. It's not the 1950's any more. Things have changed. Most radio stations now carry pretty much the same content 24/7. When one tunes in to a music format station, one expects to hear the same sort of music regardless of when one tunes in. One doesn't expect rock in the morning, country at mid-day, urban in the afternoon, and polkas at night. Talk format stations are no different. Attempting to program conservative talk in the afternoon, liberal talk at night, and non-political shock-jock talk in the morning is a recipe for total ratings disaster.

If Hannity & Ed Schultz went after each after for three hours on the same show, it would make great radio.
It would also wear thin real quick. You're talking something that would have the same ratings profile as "Jack" or "Bob" in music radio -- a quick ratings spike, followed by a sharp collapse when the novelty wears off.

 

[evnlee]

Stopwatches are unnecessary. A little common sense goes a long way. So-called conservatives don't need to listen to liberals, any more than liberals have to listen to conservatives.

But they should. It is how you learn what the other person thinks...assuming they actually do. Unfotunately most people these days only listen to people who agree with them. In fact you should listen to the people you disagree with if only to understand them better. What a concept...understanding and tolerance.

The comment by someone about "gardening show" was at best simplistic. Please do better next time. I'm sure you can.

As for news...I'm not even going there. I'm not going to change your opinion regardless of how incorrect you happen to be.

JaR, I agree with you people 'should listen to the other side'...My issue ( and it is one you have stealthily avoided ) is that some people feel that the police power of the Federal Government should be levied to force station owners in one and only one format to air programming they do not want to. They do not discuss this issue in any other format except talk radio.

recently we have been treated to plenty of politicians weighing in on each side...Interestingly, some of the libtalk defenders that said this was a 'strawman' argument are conspicously absent lately...The one's that say ' that's just Rush making stuff up to incite the base ' now have audio of Kerry stating ( on NPR, no less~ how ironic ) that the return of the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea, and GOP politicians offering amendments to stop any funding for any new 'Fairness Doctrine'.

I'll state this again : I dont not lose sleep worrying about a new FD...I see the $$$$ trail, and any attempt to push such a measure through Congress will not work, as lobbyists for the NAB, Clear Channel and the like will buy a defeat....

I take particular joy in pointing out that this was all predicted years and years ago by some of the same voices that would be affected by this~ and for many years progressive types have proclaimed ' awww, your just imagining things..'

to those I say : it must absolutely burn that the hated Rush Limbaugh saw this one coming a decade ago, and accurately predicted everything that's been happening lately.

 

[RBA]

Exactly! How about Air America being forced to carry Hannity, Savage, et al? You want fair...

If Hannity & Ed Schultz went after each after for three hours on the same show, it would make great radio. If Savage & Stephanie Miller had no holds barred for three hours, I would listen. Heated debate and personal insults, what a concept. Maybe...that's only for the chatboards.

Hannity and Savage would go crying to their mommies. They couldn't compete with the facts.

 

[justareporter]

My suggestion is not that we have a conservative and a liberal (assuming I even know what one of each is) at the same time. but that is another story.

As for programming vs. programs...maybe that is why total audience for radio is down...and even for talk (I'm told but cannot take the time to verify.)

Maybe we should spend more time on the talent and the programs and less on making the whole station sound like a clone of another station.

I'm not a believer in having the government enforce some arbitrary standard of fairness....but the marketplace has done a miserable job of doing it on its own. The argument that "liberal" talk radio fails because no one wants to listen is falacious. Marketing for same (from what I have seen traveling the country) is pretty awful if it exists at all. Come to think of it, marketing for all stations is pretty miserable.

Rush was hardly an oracle. Many broadcasters have been saying for over a decade that the "marketplace" needs fixing. Most of the problem can be laid at the door step of large owners that have no community roots and whose ONLY interrest is $. A 30% ROI isn't good enough.