Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

[radioplayer]

Sir Rox:

I don't consider the current policy to be informative at all, instead it is mostly entertainment-based,often with misleading or totally incorrect facts and/or total propaganda, etc., It doesn't matter if it's supposedly Right or Left-they are both doing this.

The Fairness Doctrine in it's past was never perfect. With a few tweaks in re-activation though, it would restore some sense of factual balance with regards to important issues germinating in our local communites and beyond. Most importantly, it would require broadcasters to look beyond the accounting room door and regain a focus towards the city of license and many important issues, locally, regionally and nationally.

 

[gr8oldies]

No, radioplayer, I canh tune out your "civil, perfectly equal, government mandated discussion programmin" much faster than you can say "public interest, convenience and neccessity". OK, you have your way. Monday morning Rush, Savage, Hannity, Ingram, O'Reilly, Rhodes, Hartmann, McConnell, etc are all gone, and from now on we have only shows which give 5 minutes to the Republicans, then five minutes to the Democrats with only a moderator "Hitler was really a nice guy. Well thanks for your call". So now what happens when there's a split in the Republican party, for example, such as the current one on immigration. Two and a half minutes for each position?. It really doesn't matter...the audience will be gone. These hosts will land satellite radio deals immediately and XM recievers will fly off the shelves. The internet will be a source for all kinds of partisanship, like it is now. Unless you're proposing to extend the fairness doctrine to print, sattelite and the internet, the audience will tune out the "civil discussion" and make their choice, which, as much as you don't want them to have one, they will. You seem to have a lot of contempt for average people. You apparently really want to go back to 1967, when all political opinion was filtered through the Washington Post and New York Times, with the three network newscasts echoing whatever those publications deemed to be the "proper" take on the issues of the day.

Even Tom Delay was quoted as saying that talk radio is driving the opposition to the illegal immigrant amnesty bill (oops...thats too partisan and must be prohibited on the public airwaves...OK, Immigration Reform Act) and "something must be done about it". Citizens expressing opinions...we can't have that! So you may get your way eventually, except the audience will all go elsewhere. Maybe back to music.

 

[radioplayer]

Mr. Great One,

I'm realistic and I don't live in 1967. I actually work in this business and understand what was the past and what is going on quite keenly in this business today. The first misunderstanding of the Fairness Doctrine is that it is NOT equal time for candidates and/or discussion. Rather, the section asks stations to have a balanced approach that purports opportunity for opposing views, contrary to the so-called "fair and balanced" slogan that one particular cable network has used repeatedly over their air.

You and others have brought up the internet and how that now somehow nullifies and makes mute, the point of good balanced discussion on community issues. Anyone doing any good objective research knows that the internet is not a good source of consistently reliable information, mainly because most of the topics regarding discussion are almost totally bias and agenda-driven! Wikipedia is classic and I could name many others. Google searches by order of the higher PAID sponsor first, then lists things down the row. I could name more.

I must remind you that internet opens up the masses to PUBLICATION; but balanced truth is absolutely not part of that equation. Therefore, you can't trust the sources anymore then that site you found that Hitler didn't kill those Jews, it was just a lie....remember that website? Beleive me, it's out there. Too bad that I've been to Europe more than once and have seen it with my own eyes ....so I won't go any further.

The bottom line is that federally licensed radio & TV stations are part of the public's airwaves. As such, they must hold the standard for reliability and maintain a fair outlook in their approach to important sensitive, controversial and sometimes unpopular issues. This is their mandate and their responsibility as owners of stations that use our public airwaves.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Fairness? Doctrine

The bottom line is that federally licensed radio & TV stations are part of the public's airwaves. As such, they must hold the standard for reliability and maintain a fair outlook in their approach to important sensitive, controversial and sometimes unpopular issues. This is their mandate and their responsibility as owners of stations that use our public airwaves.

Player, the can of worms that you're trying to reopen brings back the following problems:

1. Who determines "fairness" and "balance"? How many points of view need to be represented? For example, does a discussion of the holocaust require you to include the nutjobs who say that it never occurred?

2. Who is going to listen? The people who are already engaged in issues are seeking out the information from the myriad of sources that are readily available on the Internet, cable, and existing radio programs.

3. You contend that the Internet isn't a reliable source of information. You'd better include radio, TV, publishing, and every other form of communication, because misinformation is available everywhere. Most people are capable of evaluating the relative reliability of information based on the website and its track record. In fact, most major sources of information - like newspapers, radio & TV stations, and virtually every group with a point of view - have websites available for public perusal. Give people a little credit for being able to determine the credible sources from the nutjobs.

Once again, the biggest problem with the Fairness Doctrine was that it prevented discussion because of the nebulous concept of "fairness" and "balance". Those are nice concepts, but impossible to enforce. Fox thinks that it's fair and balanced. So does CNN. Neither is close in my opinion. Then again, that's the problem with opinion. Yours is different from mine. That's also what makes it impossible to control and/or legislate.

4. It's arguable that there is "opportunity for opposing views" in that most talk shows take callers. Of course, the callers are at the mercy of the host who controls the mute button, and/or has the power to hang up on a caller, then harangue or deride them long after they have lost the ability to respond. In other words, you have an opportunity to get a shot in, but you're likely to lose the battle if the host doesn't agree with you. BTW, that's true on most talk shows, no matter which point of view they generally represent.

The Fairness Doctrine died from natural causes. Please don't attempt to revive a failed policy that would do little but line the pockets of lawyers willing to argue the numerous untenable points like the ones raised above.

 

[thebroker]

First you tell me how selfless you are, how wonderful that you give the unwashed masses YOUR radio station's time freely. Oh great master, you are too kind to we the people. How noble and high minded! When God gave you your radio station frequency he must have known what he was doing.

Of course it is no business of mine how much you do and do not give, nor do I care- you are the one talking about how wonderful and giving your station is (and you yourself- "cheerfully and anonymously", if you weren't going to bother with my remarks on giving I suggest you actually do so). It doesn't cost you one red cent to play some telethon or mention a cause on radio. I am not privy to the stations finances either- doesn't the goodwill up revenue later? Isn't that Harvard Business school 101? I would recommend charitable giving to any business and can tell you it is good business sense (it's called PR). Not doing so is called "penny wise, pound foolish". Don't make yourself into a martyr, I ain't buying. I see plenty of charitable work by local stations around the US and I can tell you that splashed everywhere is the radio station's call letters, personalities, jingo's, all hanging out in the parking lot of the "corporate sponsor" (ie. grocery store) in a fancy van handing out keychains and T-Shirts with the same sort of info. You would be forgiven if you couldn't make out the cause.

Apart from attacking me, was there any real purpose to your post? I'm incredibly sorry if you are one of those folks who feels the constant need to attack others in the neverending quest to make yourself feel good. If you are one of those people, though, you may certainly feel free to use me as a target any time you'd like. You see, best I can tell, you aren't my mother, I'm not married to you, and you do not pay my mortgage. Therefore, I really don't care what you say about me, because your opinion of me doesn't effect me one way or another. Incidentally, before you start to pass judgement, perhaps you should get to know just a little bit more about me. Just ask around. If you are actually in the broadcasting business, it won't be too awful hard to find somebody who knows me. Ask them if I'm a selfish bastard who grandstands only for public attention, as you've protrayed me to be. Trust me, I didn't get into the radio business for money. I'm in the business because I love it, and as corny as it may sound, I enjoy the opportunity to serve my community. Of course, according to you, robbbc, I'm not allowed to mention that I serve the community, lest I be accused of pandering for goodwill. I posted those comments regarding on-air fundraisers simply because the other side of the equasion needed to be presented, not in order to hilight what I personally do for my community. It is my preference to always give anonymously. However, when somebody makes the assertion that we, as broadcasters, are not a giving bunch, I see no need to ignore the comments and not mention the things that many of us do. My comments were only in defense of hundreds of giving and hard-working broadcasters, and in no way did I mean them to be self-promoting.

If you woke up tomorrow and suddenly found that you happened to be the licensee of my radio stations, what would you do differently? Since you seem to have such strong and pointed views about what we broadcasters should be doing, why don't you educate me. I take constructive criticism very well, and I'm quite anxious to know how you'd use my little slice of bandwidth to serve the public any better than I do now. If you are only interesting in throwing rocks rather than offer specific suggestions as to why you believe I fall short in my service to the public, then I'll humbly resign from the conversation. If you do intend to engage in intelligent debate, though, I only request that you get to know me rather than generalize and group me into the same category as other broadcasters, as you've seemingly done.


On another note, SirRoxalot, your last post was very lucid and right to the point. I couldn't agree more. The Fairness Doctrine could never be implemented, in reality, simply because enforcement would require a bureaucracy more unruly than anybody could imagine.

 

[Lando Griffin]

It's all a matter of WHO wants a fairness doctrine. Look who is advocating it and why.

Talk radio essentially allows people to speak out on issues that matter to them. A host is an agitator and facilitator -- and a valued ratings-and-revenue-generating talent. Only those who know how to get an audience to talk about what's going on in the world will survive. The problem with FD advocates, however, is that they don't want to hear what the PEOPLE have to say if it hurts their agenda. As the SOcialist Democratic Caucus (now called the "Progressive Democratic Caucus") tries to push this bill under the guise of "fairness," what they're really doing is trying to shut down the true voice of dissent -- that of the honest, hard-working American people who would NEVER have the same forum with ANY of these Congresspeople or Senators who are to busy schmoozing with big-ticket donors to hear what the actual VOTER has to say.

Thus, the FD as it is pu ttogether now is meant to hurt the revenue and ratings of talk radio stations thus shutting many of them down due to financial concerns. Soon we'll be hearing the same generic standards programming we used to hear on these stations before they were saved by provocative talk radio for the people.

 

[Tom Wells]

Hmmmm, who wants it? Let's say I am a conservative who does not approve of the current bluster and bully pulpit methods.
I do not like to hear ideas I agree with and support being used as bludgeons by narrow minded hosts with closed minds.
I want to hear real reasoning and balanced presentation of an issue without falling into the polarized hype we have now.
Sometimes this is who I feel like.

Then sometimes, I favor an issue which is not "conservative". I would like to hear about the issue from a perspective which does not
judge the issue in advance for me.

Why exactly is it so hard to make compelling radio without being so partisan?

Where would you suggest we tune to hear unbiased or balanced information?
Or shall we just get used to the idea that all information must necessarily be presented with bias?
What we have have now really goes against what I learned in journalism in high school, and even then the FD never did apply to
newspapers. But we were taught to write from a position that kept editorializing out.

Was this just tossed out with other things like general civility?
Like so many other old-fashioned concepts?

 

[radioplayer]

A recent survey done by another big think tank out of DC showed that 91% of the major markets in the U.S. had conservative talk radio and in several of these markets (Houston was one of these) there was NO counter (liberal if you will) programming or anything close to it.

For everyone who still thinks that the conservative "voice" is not represented, I drop one more on you all. The defeat of the Immigration Bill yesterday 6/28 is being blamed on by none other than conservative talk radio!

I've never advocated that the Fairness Doctrine was perfect, nor have I said that it will be easy. One of the suggestions made by one of my area's local talk show was to take some of the licensing fees collected by the FCC each year and route this money towards public, non-commercial radio, which then could promote balance and fairness on the airwaves.

Sound like a good compromise? I could see this model working and it can work without a lot of Government intervention.

Think about it...and don't just say no simply because you don't like an opposing view. The goal is to get the public properly educated and informed on important issues, not just make every issue a ranting session that's mostly about entertainment and $$.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

A recent survey done by another big think tank out of DC showed that 91% of the major markets in the U.S. had conservative talk radio and in several of these markets (Houston was one of these) there was NO counter (liberal if you will) programming or anything close to it.

I find it hard to believe they don't have NPR!

The defeat of the Immigration Bill yesterday 6/28 is being blamed on by none other than conservative talk radio!

The reality is that that was one part of a very large population of contempt for the unconstitutional garbage contained in that bill, which was not just about immigration.

One of the suggestions made by one of my area's local talk show was to take some of the licensing fees collected by the FCC each year and route this money towards public, non-commercial radio, which then could promote balance and fairness on the airwaves.

Government radio is not "balanced and fair" than corporate radio!

Think about it...and don't just say no simply because you don't like an opposing view. The goal is to get the public properly educated and informed on important issues, not just make every issue a ranting session that's mostly about entertainment and $$.

you can't educate the unwilling. The willing does not need the government force feeding them their biased programming when there are so many sources available because of today's technology.

 

[Tom Wells]

So those willing to be educated or even eager to be educated will never be able to hear both sides of an issue on radio?
I will be required to get news from a biased source, then seek out the oppositely biased source to hear the whole story?

If I want to hear promotional cheerleading, I already know who favors what.
If I want to hear a on-air consideration of the many possible facets and takes on an issue, radio can't do it?

This is a no-can-do attitude.
I'd rather hear radio ignore divisive issues entirely than become a mouthpiece for any kind of dogmatic "ism".

 

[GRAYWOLF]

So those willing to be educated or even eager to be educated will never be able to hear both sides of an issue on radio?

Why not, they can tune in to NPR if they want the other side...

I will be required to get news from a biased source, then seek out the oppositely biased source to hear the whole story?

That is already the case. government control doesn't change that other than eliminating the "other" view.

If I want to hear promotional cheerleading, I already know who favors what.
If I want to hear a on-air consideration of the many possible facets and takes on an issue, radio can't do it?

Sure it can and it will if there is a market for it.

I'd rather hear radio ignore divisive issues entirely than become a mouthpiece for any kind of dogmatic "ism".

If you don't want to hear what that station/mouthpiece is spewing, turn the dial.

 

[Tom Wells]

So those willing to be educated or even eager to be educated will never be able to hear both sides of an issue on radio?

Why not, they can tune in to NPR if they want the other side...

I will be required to get news from a biased source, then seek out the oppositely biased source to hear the whole story?

That is already the case. government control doesn't change that other than eliminating the "other" view.

If I want to hear promotional cheerleading, I already know who favors what.
If I want to hear a on-air consideration of the many possible facets and takes on an issue, radio can't do it?

Sure it can and it will if there is a market for it.

I'd rather hear radio ignore divisive issues entirely than become a mouthpiece for any kind of dogmatic "ism".

If you don't want to hear what that station/mouthpiece is spewing, turn the dial.

This is mind boggling...You really seem to like the market-driven result, despite the intellectual impasse.
So you, at least, are saying radio cannot give a balanced presentation.
It can only work when a biased presentation is made, because it cannot make money otherwise.
And why would I want to have only NPR vs "other" viewpoints? No one appointed NPR as arbiter of anything.
NPR is not "the other side". They are another group of biased people, with a different bias.

Finally, must radio "spew"?
I still remember when there was only a little spewing, but such blowhards were limited to their local outlet, not spewing nationwide.
And even when I agree with the spewing, I am embarrassed for the host's behavior and incivility.
The present model is customized toward creating even greater polarization.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

This is mind boggling...You really seem to like the market-driven result, despite the intellectual impasse.

That is a loaded statement, incorrectly assuming we have a truly market driven product. It is government interference that has created the mess we have, more government interference will not make things any better.

So you, at least, are saying radio cannot give a balanced presentation.

No more balanced than any other form of media. Every presentation is biased.

It can only work when a biased presentation is made, because it cannot make money otherwise.

When humans create the presentation, bias is always a factor.

And why would I want to have only NPR vs "other" viewpoints? No one appointed NPR as arbiter of anything.
NPR is not "the other side". They are another group of biased people, with a different bias.

The standard gripe is that "the conservatives unfairly have too much representation", I used NPR because it is the biggest representative of "the other side". In this context, you could substitute any other government radio and get the same thing. If you want specific representation, go out and create it. If it is a product the listeners want, you will have a successful product. Hopefully, you will have better success than Air America...There may be other lefty networks out there

Finally, must radio "spew"?

No, but it will as long as it sells.

I still remember when there was only a little spewing, but such blowhards were limited to their local outlet, not spewing nationwide.
And even when I agree with the spewing, I am embarrassed for the host's behavior and incivility.

"Times, they are a changing"... I don't listen to these flapping jaws, simply because I can't stand the idiocy coming from any of them. The few nuggets of legit info coming out isn't worth all the time wasted.

The present model is customized toward creating even greater polarization.

There is so little difference between the 2 parties that they have to polarize in order to tell the difference. this will only get worse as they become more and more identical. They are all arguing for the same thing...there is no true representation of the "other side". There are a few small time shows like freetalklive.com, but nothing with any real reach. FD will do little if anything to promote a true alternative view.

 

[radioplayer]

I find it interesting that you two can't respond more appropriately to my idea. You immediately dismiss the whole thing and use your ole' whipping stick to label everything bad other than defending your pet conservative friends in talk radio and in so doing, directly protect these multi-million dollar hosts and the companies that go to promote them, all at the EXPENSE of good public debate on the public's airwaves and then further, trash everything regarding fairness toward any ideas on this forum.

You both seem all to eager to disregard the fact that the country is being further and further polarized by the essence of the vary same tactics and then, display the same type of conduct that is presented each weekday on the air by the very entertainment hosts that you seem to be defending.

NPR is not far left, left or anything close to it. NPR actually has some balance and it's amazing just how fast the right side wants to continue to claim that their message isn't being heard! If anything, Thursday's vote in the Congress showed just how powerful these entertainers are at getting their message to the Congress!

BTW: I was not a supporter of the Immigration Bill. I thought it was bad legislation, but I don't like the fact that this issue is not being properly covered anywhere, left or right.

If you think NPR is so "left", then stop blowing smoke and come up with a specific example with details.

I've been in this business over 25 years, and I've just about seen it all when it comes to cheap labeling like this....

 

[Tom Wells]

I don't think NPR is "left". But I don't really think they are exactly balanced, either.
They should be in the best position to lead by example, with a crossfire-inspired show,
where right and left views may hopefully clash intellectually with civility.

I am eager to see this country somehow find a way to de-polarize.

The FD was intended to keep radio from sinking into this morass.

I don't know if any type of re-instatement can ever be as idealistic as the original.
Too much current baggage, no one wants to budge on positions, too polarized right now.
None of the current batch talking about a new FD strike me as "statesmen(women)", rather politicians.

Still, steps should be made toward this as a goal.
The accountability the FD gave radio was foolishly squandered for financial gain, and radio's relevance suffers accordingly.
Had radio (especially moreso than TV) appreciated the value of the public's trust, and kept that trust, I think our country
would be less polarized than now.

We've been through this before, folks. Google "Father Coughlin", one of early radio's most inflammatory orators.
He and other demagouges (Sp?) were SO divisive and disruptive as to make a need for this provision very early on.
The present is no different, we have only relaxed our standards for commercial expediency, and human nature hasn't changed.

 

[radioplayer]

Tom,

Thanks for the intelligent answer and for your insights on history into this discussion. I agree with you on your overall evaluation on NPR and too, think that they could be a good springboard into a crossfire type program that could better explain and explore issues.

 

[gr8oldies]

I can't believe the arrogance around here....we must eliminate the choices that people make in the entertainment they consume because of some misplaced ideal of "they don't know any better". Face it, at the core is "those people that listen to Rush, Sean et al are all idiots, we can't have this 'polarization' so the audience that wants to listen to those hosts must be 'reeducated' to like only C-SPAN style talk shows. We certainly can't have anything that might say, inspire opposition to an immigration bill. Why, Ted Kennedy should have gotten a rubber stamp without any of those pesky citizens, many who didn't even go to college let alone the Ivy League!
The original FD had little to nothing to with "making sure all viewpoints were aired". It had a lot to do with newspapers not wanting to lose the monopoly on the ability to editorialize.
By the way, read Democratic Underground and tell me that that is all "lofty and fair". Or maybe we can a heavy handed police state eliminate them in the name of "civility and fairness" too.

So maybe if you had had your way in the late 80s, we';d be more "civil", The New York Times and Washington Post would filter all news and opinion, some lefty group could claim that "a million homeless people die every day and its all the Republicans' fault'" and no one would run the numbers and prove the claim idiotic, because "their intentions are good". Talk radio was actually needed because there was no other side. The way you'd like it to be again, no doubt. Except that Rush Limbaugh could probably sell at least 10 million XM recievers if he was eliminated from terrestrial radio.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Short Answer

[sarcasm]No opinions are better than opinions that I disagree with. Bring back the "Fairness" Doctrine. [/sarcasm]

 

[Tom Wells]

Re: Short Answer

[sarcasm]No opinions are better than opinions that I disagree with. Bring back the "Fairness" Doctrine. [/sarcasm]

You're very close to the heart of the issue. How can you convince me to agree with you if we have our own chosen set of blinders on?
I must hear the opinions of who I disagree with, or I am guilty of willful ignorance.
Otherwise known as a closed mind. This very common human weakness is what the original FD addressed.

 

[vibe]

I like radio to entertain me (w/ music) and inform me w/ news, weather, sports, and sports talk. If people don't like a talk show host that's too conservative or liberal all they have to do is CHANGE THE STATION.