Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

[Tom Wells]

This issue has irritated me for the last 20 years. I know just how much the broadcast industry hated the fairness doctrine, and how it led most stations into namby-pamby public service shows rather than real meaty issue-driven controversial editorials.

But I would rather have the media speak in carefully measured words and avoid contention than continue to put up with
the sort of bully-pulpit blustering we have had now since the FCC abrogated the fairness doctrine.

Last week on "open line friday", a 'well known' commentator was making rude, insensitive comments about the Air America's sorry financial situation, and claiming HIS formatics and methods were the successful business mode for talk radio.

His mode of "broadcasting" was NOT PERMISSIBLE under the fairness doctrine. He COULD NOT have a bully pulpit until the requirement for opposing viewpoints was removed.

The voice of dissent is always underfunded, and the status quo will always find sponsorship.
Do you think a fairness doctrine might have been helpful to any of history's dictators?
If there were one in place, do you suppose it would be one of the first casualties of such a dictator's directives?

Mussolini once stated that the reason fascism was such a good form of government was that it was a combination of
government AND corporate power.

Corporations were most interested in abolishing the fairness doctrine.

Corporations, by and large, are NOT about fairness. They have only one nerve, tied to cash flow.
They will do whatever it takes to create a positive cash flow. Whatever you can get legislated to help you is considered fair.
All other things are secondary. The point of diminishing returns has been reached. There is no more getting by with less.
The industry has turned the notion of public service into a bad joke.

I truly don't expect the media to the tell the truth anymore, or to even make an effort to look like they are trying to.
They don't HAVE to. They can say whatever they want, and there is no recourse for anyone who may have factual information to show otherwise. They can stand in the street and scream until they get run over by traffic, but since the fairness doctrine was
repealed, there is very little the "opposing viewpoints" can do to get information out.

"We welcome your opposing viewpoint." See how easy it is to say?

 

[dgendvil]

Yeah, I love to see the Fairness Doctrine come back to life. I would like the Democratic-controlled congress to repeal this doctrine because I'm a strong advocate to bring it back, but I'm not against media consolidation anyway. Maybe a new communications act would help all this. If I were a politician, then I would try to repeal it myself & have the president veto it. But you know how Republicans & Democrats are these days. What do you think about it?

 

[Tom Wells]

I think we should say "When they took away the Clear Channels, I said nothing."
"When they took away engineer staffing requirements, I said nothing."
"When they took away the First Class license I said nothing."
"When they took away any real QRM compliance requirements for Part 15 operation, I said nothing."
"When they took away our AM bandwidth receiver fidelity I said nothing."
"When they took away the fairness doctrine, I said nothing."
"When the FCC ruined AM Stereo's best solution, I said nothing."
"When the corporate mob ate most of our local outlets...I said.....nothing."
"When the FCC was influenced to endorse intentionally interfering operations, I said nothing."
"When the president signed away habeus corpus, I said nothing...

"When......

 

[Johnny Morgan]

"When the president signed away habeus corpus, I said nothing...

Except he didn't. Good try though.

 

[thebroker]

Surely no sane person could EVER truly support the repeal of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Fairness Doctrine is just that: a repeal of the right of free speech. How do we determine just which wacko idiots get equal time? Are we going to allow Osama bin Laden equal time on the evening news? If you truly want to kill what little local radio is left in America, go ahead...bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

I grew up dirt-poor in the mountains of Southern Appalachia. I started working when I was 15, and have worked my butt off practically every day since to be where I am today. Now that I'm a suceessful broadcaster and own radio stations, if I want to say that George Bush is an idiot on the air, or that all Democrats should be voted out of office, I should be allowed to. And what are you entitled to in return, if you disagree with my viewpoint? NOTHING. Why? Because I, NOT YOU, worked my tail off all my life to save and scrape up enough money to buy the radio stations I own. Don't like what I have to say? Then buy your own radio station. Can't? Well, that's not my fault. Why punish me by dictating how I program my radio station?

Rush is on the radio not due to some right-wing conspiracy, but due to the fact that millions of Americans listen to and enjoy his show every day. His show is a successful business model, and it keeps the lights on at a whole lot of stations. If we were to have to offer equal time to opposing, less popular viewpoints, we'd have NO audience. And with no audience, we couldn't have any advertisers. With no advertisers, we couldn't pay the power bill and could cease to exist. Do you really think it is worth silencing hundreds of radio stations just so every assorted wack-job with a political agenda can get his fifteen minutes of fame? I sincerely hope not. There's nothing "fair" about the fairness doctrine.

I personally do not own a News/Talk radio station, and the stations I do own have "no politics on the air" policies. Our intent and focus is to serve our community, not exercie a political agenda. However, everything in life involves politics, and occasionally callers to our morning show will call in to voice their opinions. Heck, I might even complain myself when something happens that I don't like. Why subject me to the horrible paperwork and documentation process that the Fairness Doctrine would require simply because either me or my listeners would like to give our opinions occasionally?

 

[Tom Wells]

Pull this argument out of the minutiae (sp?), your personal situation and take an intellectual moment...

Popularity of any given opinion has no bearing on whether such opinion is factually or morally correct.
That is why this board contains contentious arguments.
It is also the only way we can uplift ourselves in life, by examining our (and others') opinions.

I repeat, the status quo will always find sponsorship, and the voice of dissent will always be underfunded.
Surely your point seems to be that the first Ammendment applies only to those who own media outlets.
The original intent of the Fairness Doctrine was to recognize that sometimes the popular (sponsored) opinion is completely wrong, corrupt, or otherwise deserving of debate, rebuttal, or address by opposing ideas.

I certainly do not agree with any of what Osama thinks, but yes, I DO want to hear the insane rantings of somone who thinks like him here in the US, to try to understand how he came to his position.

Again, try to keep specifics out of this, so we do not sink to ineffective discourse.
I applaud your effort and success. I also repect your decision to keep politics off your station.

Business is about making money, and I am of the opinion that business success and successful radio are separate things.
Of course much money can be made telling people what they want to hear, that's clear.
I have no particular axe to grind here, nor do I wish to point any fingers.
I don't beleive in conspiracies, I do beleive it is easy to live the unexamined life, and surround oneself
with cheerleaders. No one wants to consider that their ideas are wrong, but without some input from others, whether we agree with them or not, we are just whistling in dark.

In fact, I EQUATE the repeal of the fairness doctrine with a weakening of the first ammendment.

Now be reasonable here, would any dictatorship ever suport a free speech ammendment or a fairness doctrine?

 

[radioplayer]

While I understand the frustrations inherent just along this particular thread, the fact is that the Airwaves belong to the PUBLIC, not the FCC nor the broadcast companies and their owners. Thererfore, broadcasters have a unique and important role to their respective COL's (City of License) and the communities that surround this.

If you wish to voice your opinion and promote your bias (and everyone has one) then owning a newspaper might be a better avenue if that's your intention to promote only your side in the name of "profit" and in effect, squelch other opinions aside.

Reinstatement of Section 315 makes total sense in this country. I do agree that it ought to be modified and streamlined in such a way as to not make things such a burden for stations (paperwork, etc.,) because, just like the last time 315 was active, a chilling effect then becomes the standard.

The bottom line is that most stations have moved away from true News reporting in favor of "entertainment driven" so-called news and it's polarizing the country, not helping to inform the public, nor is it helping to make the country better.

If 315 is reinstated, there ought to be a similar Order that also reinstates a percentage of airtime that is devoted to news, public affairs and the like, and not have these programs "buried" in the schedule between 0100 and 0500 hours on both the radio and TV outlets.

 

[gr8oldies]

There is no way a fairness doctrine can work, and, please, can we stop imagining that we're still in 1967 and that we can force anyone to listen to anything they don't want to? make a CHR station stop the format down at noon for a 15 m inute newscast and all the radios all over the city go "click" and a CD goes in. Put a public affairs show on a country station in afternoon drive and the country CD or mp3 goes on. Make "fair" talk shows and folkks will get their daily dose of poitics from the internet or satellite radio.

 

[TexasTom]

I grew up dirt-poor in the mountains of Southern Appalachia. I started working when I was 15, and have worked my butt off practically every day since to be where I am today. Now that I'm a suceessful broadcaster and own radio stations, if I want to say that George Bush is an idiot on the air, or that all Democrats should be voted out of office, I should be allowed to. And what are you entitled to in return, if you disagree with my viewpoint? NOTHING. Why? Because I, NOT YOU, worked my tail off all my life to save and scrape up enough money to buy the radio stations I own. Don't like what I have to say? Then buy your own radio station. Can't? Well, that's not my fault. Why punish me by dictating how I program my radio station?

This is a good part of the argument for why we need a return to strict ownership limits. After all, if we accept your viewpoint, then it also makes sense to use the regulatory process to ensure that as many Americans as possible will have the chance to buy a radio station (or stations) and give voice to their perspective.

 

[thebroker]

Business is about making money, and I am of the opinion that business success and successful radio are separate things.

No, actually, they aren't. Radio stations MUST make money. If I am not successful in business, who will pay the power bill to keep my stations on the air? Who will pay my employees? How will my radio station exist if it isn't a successful business?

Is your view, then, that the government should just control the media? After all, if business success and successful radio are two separate things, independent broadcasters will go broke and have to sign their stations off. We'll be stuck with government-run media, just like China. That, or every radio station in the United States will sound like NPR, and I can't think of many things I'd rather NOT hear than public radio.

 

[Tom Wells]

Business is about making money, and I am of the opinion that business success and successful radio are separate things.

No, actually, they aren't. Radio stations MUST make money. If I am not successful in business, who will pay the power bill to keep my stations on the air? Who will pay my employees? How will my radio station exist if it isn't a successful business?

Is your view, then, that the government should just control the media? After all, if business success and successful radio are two separate things, independent broadcasters will go broke and have to sign their stations off. We'll be stuck with government-run media, just like China. That, or every radio station in the United States will sound like NPR, and I can't think of many things I'd rather NOT hear than public radio.

They are and they aren't. They ideally can happen at the same time, but with our competetive model for the radio business, it is difficult.
We would all like to be able to afford "the finer things", but unfortunately, we make do with less.
I would not like the probable result of an NPR-only broadcast industry any more than you.
But I have always thought radio might have done better by licensing listeners as the UK did at one time.
This had its own issues, but at least put content producers in the position of satisfying the listeners, not the sponsors.
Sponsors are naturally cautious about just what it is they are sponsoring. In order to keep the sponsors, the programming must be safe.
How did it ever work back in the day when DJs picked records? Sometimes well, sometimes not so well.
This is still the situation in non-comm college/university stations, and I often find them to be very sucessful radio, because they do not
have to answer to the commercial model.
This works when the audience WANTS to be surprised and delighted by things thy've never been exposed to, but is far too adventurous for those who live or die die by the ratings. Staying on the beaten path is fiscally wise. Business does not have the luxury to accomodate "radio as an ART".
I will hold up the example of WEVL Memphis, as one the best radio stations I have ever heard.
ALL the shows are run by volunteers, and I have heard more enjoyable diverse music on this station than any other.
I willingly donated money several times even while I lived 500 miles away, because I enjoyed being able to listen when I was working in the area.
In the past some of my favorite stations have been mom-n-pop operators who did it all by gut feeling, and played whatever THEY wanted.
WLCL, Lowell, Indiana was a good example. When this station was sold and became WZVN, it ceased to be interesting or enjoyable because
it then became "radio by the numbers". It was better when owned by someone who did it for the love of radio.
Business looks down and watches its feet as it walks, but by watching only the feet, does not notice that it is about to walk into a wall.

To get back to the fairness doctrine, the same considerations apply.
A sponsor would be aghast that their spot follows or precedes a segment where controversial opinions are aired.
When the opinions expressed are "more controlled", a sponsor has an easier decision to buy time.

As far as the electric bill goes, 50kw equals about 47 horsepower. At a 30% efficiency, this is still only 150 hp.
Business also finds far more expensive ways to get things done than anyone would if they were spending their own hard-earned cash.
Nice offices, all new equipment, etc. make a good impression, but are not necessary for good radio.
Putting money in the pockets of on-air talent, and engineers (full-time) are far more effective in the creation of good radio,
but business will not spend the money there. It seems no one can afford to have an "artist in residence", but they can afford many other positions which the business model dictates.

Why does the GM make so much more than any engineers? Many excuses are offered, but no good reason exists.


If radio were food, most stations would be Denny's, or other lowest common-denominator restaurants.
Better fare either costs more money, or is produced by those willing to make art for the same that others charge for mere commodities.

 

[NE Miss Radio]

Last week on "open line friday", a 'well known' commentator was making rude, insensitive comments about the Air America's sorry financial situation, and claiming HIS formatics and methods were the successful business mode for talk radio.

His mode of "broadcasting" was NOT PERMISSIBLE under the fairness doctrine. He COULD NOT have a bully pulpit until the requirement for opposing viewpoints was removed.

First, I don't think that talking about a company and their operation and success (or lack thereof) is going to fall under the fairness doctrine. If so then Wal-Mart bashers will have to shut up too. If untrue statements are aired perhaps there is a case for slander. Second, I don't think that you can argue that Rush Limbaugh has successful formatics and methods and that Air America has not yet gotten to that point.

 

[buttonpuncher]

To fill 24 hours a day there is a lot of truths, half-truths, misinformation and downright lies spewed forth on talk radio, the same holds for talk radio of the Right and the Left. I occasionally listen to right wing talk and hear a lot of BS, I also listen to Air America and hear a lot of, guess what? BS.

Which group (Left or Right) is more gullible in believing the talk radio misinformation coming from the side of the political fence they favor?

Which group desires more accuracy and recognizes the BS in the talk radio they listen to?

(I'm not implying that there is not any valuable accurate info on talk radio)

 

[TheRover]

Free Speech ?

Yeah, you can talk to your neighbor about stuff.....

But, the overwhelming message on the pervasive and powerful TV Media is one-sided liberalism, in the content and the character of MOST of it's programming.

Yeah, I'd like to see a true "Fariness Doctrine" for ALL Programming: News, Entertainment News, News that's entertaining, Entertainment that's News, etc, etc....Comedy, Drama, Romance......

Sorry to #%^* on your party!! But once we start to go down that road of "Fairness".... then there is no stopping it in any category. News is entertianment.... and Entertainment is News.... Big Corporate Media wouldn't have it ANY other way.

And that... is the World you live in

 

[AKLes]

Actually, a new "Fairness Doctrine" could be made to work. But only for ownerships with minimum two decent signals in the same market.

Here's how it works:

Megagigantic Broadcasting and Pie-Eating Company owns KX_X, 1010 and KZ_Z 1220 in the same town.

KX starts Rush Limbaugh at 9:00 am.

KZ starts Randi Rhodes at 9:00 am.

At 10:00 am KX identifies: You're listening to KX_X in Anytown. Now, in voluntary compliance with The FCC Fairness Doctrine, if you want to continue listening to Rush push the 1220 button on your radio.

KX then picks up Randi Rhodes, already in progress.

Also at 10:00 am KZ identifies: You're listening to KZ_Z in Anytown. Now, in voluntary compliance with The FCC Fairness Doctrine, if you want to continue listening to Randi push the 1010 button on your radio.

KZ then picks up Rush Limbaugh, already in progress.

Both Megagigantic Broadcasting and Pie-Eating Company stations are in full compliance with The New Fairness Doctrine.

Meanwhile, the single ownership KW_W across town continues with today's edition of "flowers for the front yard" while quivering in fear that advocates of salted earth will demand equal time.


I can see the billboards now! Remember the WFAA/WBAP billboards with the neon section that lit up with the appropriate frequency as the stations swapped frequency several times a day? Yup. A giant billboard with Rush's picture and something like:

"Join The Rush to Rush - (1010)(1220)" where the dial setting illuminated is the one where you'd tune right now to hear him."

 

[gr8oldies]

That could actually make sense..sorta.

 

[FreddyE1977]

As a classic bumper sticker once tried to teach us...

"If you like the Postal Service,
you'll LOVE National Health Care!"

In short, there is not problem or concern out there that cannot be made
FAR WORSE by a dose of over-attention from the federal government. Face it...the very
last thing that any revived "fairness doctrine" would be concerned about is
"fairness". It would just be one more tool in the toolkit for whichever
political party was in power to harrass and undemine their opposition. Look at
the bizarre convolutions out there that are happening as a result of the
McCain-Feingold attempt at "Campaign Finance Reform" and you'll see what I mean.
A revived "Fairness" Doctrine would be McCain-Feingold on steroids!

When will we all get it....Politicians are all about self-preservation...not about solving
public problems or "fairness"!

 

[AKLes]

Just today The U.S. Postal Service announced they're taking all the clocks out of post office lobbies so people won't be able to keep track of how long they've been standing in line. It will make their complaints seem less valid when they can't say exactly how many hours they were there.

Smart customers bring lunch and wear watches.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Is Randi Really the Anti-Rush?

I find it hard to believe that the folks who think that the FCC is clueless on "objectionable content" are willing to give them the power to determine "fairness".

What happens if some moderate host actually advocates positions indepently of party affiliation? Will he/she need to bring in representatives of both political parties to rebut different portions of his/her views?

You can't advocate free speech on one hand, then advocate censorship on the other. Make no mistake, the Fairness Doctrine was/would be censorship based on political opinion. Let the public decide what they want to hear.

 

[KPLEXCOMPLEX]

The Fairness Doctrine is NOT about removing "free speech" that is a lame and old argument set forth by those who don't want the other side of a campaign or civic issue discussed. They are afraid that their opinion, very loosely based with very little fact from an opposing viewpoint,would take away from their superimposed image of credibility. Many listeners and viewers would rather see and hear an EVEN discussion on any given issue,especially with elections,than a talk show host basically supporting one candidate over another or issue. When the Doctrine went away it gave birth to Rush and the other lemmings followed. As one pointed out if you want to have only one opinion without a fair discussion,then resort to a newspaper's editorial page and become a columnist. Newspapers are privately owned,the radio frequencies are owned by the citizens of this country and they have a right to have access to them,no matter whose license occupies it. Part of a democracy is a fair and balanced exchange of ideas and opinions that we proudly say to other nations that we are. We should get back to living it.