• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Boxer and Clinton want 'legislative fix' for talk radio

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.

If that's not a left-handed advocacy of government intervention ...

Remember, whenever a sentence includes "but", everything before the word "but" is BS.

There are two choices. The marketplace can handle enforcing standards of fairness, or the government. That's it. There are no other options. If you advocate someone doing something, it's either the one or it's the other. You can't be a mugwump, you either favor one or the other, or else you're just typing away to see your words on the computer screen.

So which is it? Do you favor someone doing something? If so, who do you favor doing it, the private sector or the government.

I believe the operative expression here is "put up or shut up".
 
it still doesnt make sense....

only~ONLY~ Talk Radio gets a 'fix'. And 'progressive types' do not have a problem with this kind of discrimination?

If your going to try to enact FCC measures to achieve some sort of 'political correctness', why only Talk Radio? Opinion?

People tune into a station that offer what they want to hear: if you like country, you have a country station. If you like rap, you have a rap station. Should the FCC be involved in making sure each play the opposite music, in the name of 'fair public interest'? No? Then why should they single out 'Talk Radio'?

Someone please explain that to me.

Also, I'd like to point out something that had been missing from this argument.

Even with all the current options available, how could a true liberal say there aren't any other choices except conservative talk? In my market ( #9 ) we have NPR ( twice ) an 'urban talk' station, and a local non comm that already offer 'the other side'....Plus the various college stations that rarely offer opinion, but when they do: it's certainly not conservative...So when Air America tanked here, how could it be spun that they were 'silenced'? There were options, but nobody stepped up to save them...There were already plenty of other options to choose from!!!
 
Once again paranoia reigns supreme. Why is it that a call for "balance" becomes "you want to silence conservatives!"

Talk radio is entertainment and so in the classicly there is no need for "fairness" or "balance."

Here is the problem: they are "public airwaves" licensed to serve the "public interest." As such there is an unwritten requirment in serving the "public interest" to provide an outlet for competing thought and opinion.

Now how could a good liberal or conservative....never mind a good American....who believes in the constitution and fairness be against that?
 
justareporter said:
Once again paranoia reigns supreme. Why is it that a call for "balance" becomes "you want to silence conservatives!"
Click to expand...

ummm...because they are only talking about 'balancing TALK RADIO', and NO OTHER FORMAT....
 
Why is it that a call for "balance" becomes "you want to silence conservatives!"

Why won't you answer the question posed to you? Why do you keep harping in the goal of those who claim they want "fairness" and instead deal with the real issue, which is who will be responsible for enforcing those standards of "fairness"?

Now how could a good liberal or conservative....never mind a good American....who believes in the constitution and fairness be against that?

It's not a question of what the goal might be. The issue is who is going to have the power to force people to conform to their standards of how that goal is to be implemented?

This is not 1984. Big Brother doesn't rule here, yet. Forget your double-think posturing and adress the issue.

Who do you want to see empowered to make the judgement calls of what is or isn't "fair", and to be able to enforce those judgement calls?
 
Management. Each station is responsible to provide balance. The government simply says you have to do it. Everyone with a brain knows what balance is, government simply requires it.
 
OK guys. Starting Monday, Armstrong Williams co-hosts the Tom Joyner show. Jay Leno alternates between liberal and conservative jokes in his monologue. And there are two conservative women co-hosting The View.

Liberal talk failed because their hosts sucked, and the audience that would listen to liberal radio was listening to something else. And its the left who can't handle facts (oh yeah..you disagree with me> Well you're a racist, sexist and hompohobe...and a global warming denier!)
 
justareporter said:
Management. Each station is responsible to provide balance. The government simply says you have to do it. Everyone with a brain knows what balance is, government simply requires it.
Click to expand...

And who enforces the government's saying that stations have to do it? Who decides if the balance is adequate? What happens when someone "interprets" balanced in a manner that displeases whoever has to decide if the balance is adequate or not.

The simple truth is that no one actually knows what "balance" is. To some, it means everything must be 50/50, even if the citizens of the United States are split 60/40. To some, it means things must be in proportion. To some, balance is a clear-cut One Party versus the Other Party split. To others, there are multiple points of view that deserve representation.

The real simple truth is that you still haven't answered the question. So, I'll make it more detailed for you, since you are "reasonable" enough to understand what anyone with a brain easily realizes.

Who will have to power to enforce the government's orders to have "balance"? Will it be elected officials, appointed bureaucrats, or the Judiciary Branch? What power will the enforcers have? Can they issue fines? Suspend licenses? Put people in jail? What sorts of appeals will be possible? Who will arbitrate disputes if two people, both of which have brains, disagree over what "balance" actually is?
 
In response to the question of who enforces balance I'd proffer the following:

We're all supposed to be professionals here. At least I can say after 30+ years in radio and television both in front of and behind a microphone and camera that I am.

Professionals know what balance is. The pros will do what the law requires them to do because they are pros. The few that don't...aren't.

Not every regulation has to come with an imediate threat of fine, imprisonment, etc.. Stations have licenses and the FCC is in charge of awarding those licenses. Responsible individuals who believe a station and/or its management have failed to live up to the obligations of having a license have an opportunity to challenge that renewal.

I am always amazed at the level of paranoia.
 
Professionals know what balance is.

Then why don't the "professionals" on the air for CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, or NPR, or the "professionals" who write for the New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, or any other print pieces present the news in a "balanced" fashion?

If "balance" is so freakin' simple, why isn't there any?
 
When will NPR (Nationalist People's Radio) behave as balanced? And for all the Doc's and Damp's out there: Please, don't try to "explain" NPR..
 
justareporter said:
Management. Each station is responsible to provide balance. The government simply says you have to do it. Everyone with a brain knows what balance is, government simply requires it.
Click to expand...

so let me get this straight.

'Management' is supposed to 'know what balance is' , yet if you are to believe the CAP report, most in talk radio 'management' are conservative. So, we are to let this 'management', which is mostly conservative, provide balance, then who's going to monitor the 'management'?

JaR knows...It's the websites that are now providing 'balance', Media Matters and the Media Research Center. They will be recording everything and flooding 'management' and the FCC with complaints.

JaR needs to read about Dan Rather (just another 'reporter' that's 'balanced' ) and his views of working under the Fairness Doctrine, a horrible legislative fix....Google Dan Rather and Fairnedd Doctrine, JaR, and get back to us ;)
 
A standard of "I know it when I see it" invites nothing but lawsuits. I really finmd it funny that some of you FD proponents can say with a straight face that no stopwatchj and calculator will be neccesary. So let me give you this scenafrio: Station does the best it can alternating liberal and conservative points of view, even though some of the best-performing shows have been dropped, ratings and billing are down substantially because very few stick around for Randi Rhodes after Rush Limbaugh, and then it happens...a lawsuit. Sorry, you have Alan Colmes in the liberal category and since he's on Fox news, that's not acceptable. THE ONLY DEFENSE IS FOR STATION MANAGEMENT TO COUNT EVERY LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE SENTENCE UTTERED. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS!
 
Just a few points:

1. Newspapers aren't the same as broadcast outlets. They aren't licensed by the government. Don't like the Times? Don't buy it. Same with the Manchester Union Leader.

2. Most managers I have known would freely admit to being conservative. Most...not all. The good ones (and I am thinking of one in particular) will also tell you they go out of their way to provide balance on their stations. They may not agree with positions dissimilar to theirs but they respect them.


3. Someone asked , "if balance is so freekin' simple why isn't there any." The simple answer is news is not "talk." we'll have a three day argument about whether news is "balanced" (I THINK IT IS SOME WILL THINK I AM NUTS) but the fact is the discussion thread is about "talk" not news. Talk goes on unfact checked and unchallenged for 55 minutes (minus commercials) while news MIGHT hit five minutes.

Broadcasters should do the "right thing" and provide balance on their stations. their failure to do so speaks only to their myopic view of the audience and of the public in general.

As to the comment about lawyers and judges and timing every second...please....your paranoia is showing. Try being sensible.
 
3. Someone asked , "if balance is so freekin' simple why isn't there any." The simple answer is news is not "talk." we'll have a three day argument about whether news is "balanced" (I THINK IT IS SOME WILL THINK I AM NUTS) but the fact is the discussion thread is about "talk" not news. Talk goes on unfact checked and unchallenged for 55 minutes (minus commercials) while news MIGHT hit five minutes.

The thing is, if those "professionals" who broadcast the news, which is supposed to be balanced, )or at least you have claimed such in earlier posts) can't manage five minutes of fair, balanced news every hour, then how can anyone in their right mind expect anyone running a talk show to keep the other 55 minutes of the hour "balanced"?
 
News people run the news department. Programmers run the "talk" side. Never the twain shall meet...at least at the good operations. They may talk to one another...but they never poach.
 
justareporter said:
Newspapers aren't the same as broadcast outlets. They aren't licensed by the government. Don't like the Times? Don't buy it. Same with the Manchester Union Leader.
Click to expand...

crazy talk.... Newspapers aren't 'licensed'? Just because there is no oversight does not mean that they do not have a 'business license', they do ,in fact have to carry a license to do business, as well as having thier profits taxed...

Go tell the owner of the Manchester Union Leader that he does not have to have a 'license'....

that issue that JaR avoids is this: the legislative 'fix' is only intended for " Talk Radio " and nothing else...By stipulating that only talk radio needs to be 'fixed' coming on the heels of Err Amerika's demise only showcases the 'unfairness' of it, and JaR knows this...That's why he runs and hides from the 'tough questions' like any reporter..

Why only 'fix' talk radio, and nothing else?
 
Mr. Evnlee makes the classic error. He mistakingly confuses a business license with an FCC license. A business license carries the unspoken requirement to make money. An FCC license requires the holder to serve the public interest. Where they conflict the FCC license holder has a reponsibility to serve the public interest.

And secondly, no one is trying to "fix" talk radio. I strongly encourage anyone with an opinion to go find a station and spread it to the masses. What some argue for is a requirement to provide an equal opportunity for alternate viewpoints.

Newspapers can be as far right or left wing as they like with no requirement to provide a scintilla of space for oposing views. Broadcasting has been...and should be a different animal. We're licensed to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. I know that is a hard concept for some to grasp but it is a fundamental for license renewal.

And it is that paranoia thing again....

Does anyone really think if stations provided some level of balance in their talk programming there would be less conservative talk?
 
Does anyone really think if stations provided some level of balance in their talk programming there would be less conservative talk?

I think that if stations attempted to provide the kind of balance that you describe, the ratings for all news/talk would go down the toilet, and news/talk as a format would vanish. And that is exactly what the liberal politicians are hoping for -- since conservative dominate news/talk radio, they're willing to kill the entire format. They'll sacrifice the few marginally successful liberal talk hosts as if they were disposable pawns in order to also get rid of Rush and the other conservative heavyweights.
 
I can think of no evidence to suggest that "balance" would mean the death of talk radio. It might actually bring in some new listeners who right now (pardon the pun) can't find anything on the dial to listen to.

I might suggest that those folks terrified of "balance" are acutally afraid of being trumped in the marketplace of a free and open expression of ideas. I think they are terrified that maybe their opinions can't hold up to scrutiny and challenge.

"Methinks they protest to much."
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom