• 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

Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

vibe said:
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.

True, I keep turning stations on free radio and can't anything to listen at least for a very long time. I can't listen to any Right wing talkers because it's so bad. OTH, I can't listen to Air America because it's so boring (when available in the market). What happens when I keep changing the station can't ANYTHING I LIKE? Buy XM? :mad:
 
radioplayer said:
I find it interesting that you two can't respond more appropriately to my idea.

What idea might that be?

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

Nevermind, I thought you were talking to me...Who are you talking to?

all at the EXPENSE of good public debate on the public's airwaves

Call your local NPR station and demand it...see how far you get.

and then further, trash everything regarding fairness toward any ideas on this forum.

There is nothing fair when the government interferes.

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.

You ignore the fact that the polarization is just an illusion.

NPR is not far left, left or anything close to it.

And FNC is not right 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!

Our Repuclic at work...the problem is?

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.

Legislation never is. An unconstitutional "FD" won't change that, you will still get the same pro-government interference coverage you get now.
 
thebroker said:
robbbc said:
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.

If I owned a station I would choose product that wasn't already available in my community. I would choose product that I could sell to local business people and I would seek them out. Pretty simple formula, right? Wrong. Not when I find out that Clear Channel who owns my station also owns Rush and I have to play him even though he can already be heard at the same time in my area so that the corporate owners who have already sold airtime nationally don't loose listeners to a competitor. That's called an anticompetitive market. The FCC says they will investigate so I counterprogram to no one (oldies, radio disney, ESPN off the bird and infomercials) to keep the competition down. Rush stays at the top, my station can't make payroll but the mother ship bails me out every week knowing that I am keeping real competition off Rush's doorstep. I claim I am serving a minority (Sports loving senior citizens with visiting children).

In a competitive market, the network/syndicator isn't allowed to own the outlets (or at least any more than a small handful). The outlets can choose what they play and switch networks and syndicated programming as they so choose (with the limitation of contractual obligations). Just like I wouldn't want Procter and Gamble to own Shaws. I can produce as much local content as I want and as far as I am concerned they can be left right or center. As for the FD not a fan, especially as it cuts both ways.

I would operate my radio station (hopefully my independent radio station in a world where syndicators and networks can't own them) independently. I would use the station to promote local events and would be involved in the community, in a tasteful and understated way. It would be hard to program Gangsta rap if I got an earful at the grocery store each week from parents concerned about content. And that is where I would be, in the grocery store- not at the mansion in Texas thanking someone for their e-mail complaint as I sip wine. Far away from the people the station actually serves.

You sound like you are a decent station owner and I don't mean to point out you as one of the good or bad ones. Charity is wonderful and I am not going to speak against it- I just don't consider it a public service, I consider it a sensible business practice- not just for radio but for any businessman, and I would go so far as to say that if the government is requiring such charitible giving, even implicitly, that that policy should be ended.

Re-regulating radio station ownership (sans fairness doctrine) is a good way for the government to passively ensure that competition remains strong in radio and the dangers of centralized radio, which we are living today, are avoided. Public service requirements, Indecency rules, and fairness doctrines are the fuzzy rules of radio which have done nothing to prevent the mess we are in today.
 
robbbc said:
If I owned a station I would choose product that wasn't already available in my community. I would choose product that I could sell to local business people and I would seek them out. Pretty simple formula, right? Wrong. Not when I find out that Clear Channel who owns my station

You just contradicted yourself. Either you own the station or CC does. If CC owns it, then you, as a CC employee, have to follow their instructions. If you own the station, you are free to program as you wish. If you don't like the terms of the syndication contract, don't sign it. This kind of invalidates the rest of the post until clarified.
 
Re-regulating radio station ownership (sans fairness doctrine) is a good way for the government to passively ensure that competition remains strong in radio and the dangers of centralized radio, which we are living today, are avoided. [/quote]

Right on! That's exactly it: we're talking about passive intervention by the FCC that ensures the public that the airwaves are used to cover important events and at the same time we all ought to wake up and not kidd ourselves into thinking that all's swell in the current state of radio-far from it. Reality (greywolf-listen up please) is that most broadcasters are not doing what's expected by the public. People listen to local for local. Sat radio, jock in the box, all syndication all the time and the anti-competitive enviornment that comes about because of these current ownership rules are all key to the reasons why we're in such a mess in the 5th estate.

Fairness is not an option, it is EXPECTED by the public on their airwaves, just like in their courts of justice and in their White House and Their Congress.
 
radioplayer said:
Right on! That's exactly it: we're talking about passive intervention by the FCC that ensures the public that the airwaves are used to cover important events and at the same time we all ought to wake up and not kidd ourselves into thinking that all's swell in the current state of radio-far from it. Reality (greywolf-listen up please) is that most broadcasters are not doing what's expected by the public. People listen to local for local. Sat radio, jock in the box, all syndication all the time and the anti-competitive enviornment that comes about because of these current ownership rules are all key to the reasons why we're in such a mess in the 5th estate.

If that were true, they wouldn't be tuning in...

Fairness is not an option, it is EXPECTED by the public on their airwaves, just like in their courts of justice and in their White House and Their Congress.

Riiiiighttttt!! Why do they always vote against it come election time?
 
GRAYWOLF said:
If that were true, they wouldn't be tuning in...


Riiiiighttttt!! Why do they always vote against it come election time?

Grey: why is it that you can never respond to anything with substance? Cheap shots are exactly that. I'd like to converse this subject with you with something substantive and more positive. You offer only one-liners. I can get better lines watching Hollywood's latest.

Please get your ducks in order and come up with some evidence of your claims to say the least, or just sit back, enjoy the ride and learn something new instead of shooting down everything and being negative about the whole process.
 
GRAYWOLF said:
Riiiiighttttt!! Why do they always vote against it come election time?


One more for you Dr. Grey:

We're talking about the Fairness Doctrine, not elections. Look at the Congress and what are they talking about right now? The Fairness Doctrine and re-invigoration of it. Like it or not, it's an eventual reality. Something's going to come from the hearings that both the FCC and the Congress are doing. People are tired of the entertainment-based, so-called "news" shows like Rush that takes material and distorts it all over the dial. They are also tired of the current atmosphere that's both on the airwaves and in politics in general. That's the latest news and those are the facts. Rush won't give you the news and shows like his or even on Air America, only distortion of it. In the case of Rush, that only propgates his show and his interests, which in the end is all about his wallet getting much bigger, along with the company who owns the rights to the show and those who air his distortions everyday. I pick on Rush only because he's the most obvious one of all. There are many others doing the same thing./
 
It's Not Fair

I have still not seen any reasonable system proposed for determining "fairness". That's the crux of the matter for re-establishment of the "Fairness Doctrine", and the problem that killed it in the first place.

Who determines fairness? Who is responsible for finding and presenting "other points of view"? How many "other points of view" need to be presented? What about the "quality" of the opposition? A radio professional should be better at presenting ideas to an audience than an amateur.

Those are only a few of the questions that need to be answered regarding "fairness". The bottom line is that listeners vote with their dials. Rush has lost stations because people are tiring of his act. Air America has failed to gain much traction because they don't have much of an act. The proposed "Fairness" would try to force programming on people that they aren't interested in hearing. That's essentially a penalty to broadcasters that's not enforced on any other media.

Let the marketplace decide. Let people tune into the content that they find compelling and/or entertaining. Obviously, our republic has survived the onslaught of the neo-con talkers. It will survive the inevitable onslaught of lib-talkers. People are smarter than you give them credit for, and their is no dearth of outlets for the opposition to express their point of view.
 
radioplayer said:
Grey: why is it that you can never respond to anything with substance?

Maybe you should try reading some of my posts.

I'd like to converse this subject with you with something substantive and more positive. You offer only one-liners. I can get better lines watching Hollywood's latest.


Why write 3 paragraphs when one sentence will say the same thing?

"If that were true, they wouldn't be tuning in..." means, if people wanted what you stated, they would not be listening to what is currently available. I don't know how to rewrite that into several paragraphs...it is a very simple statement that proves the fallacy of your proposition.

Please get your ducks in order and come up with some evidence of your claims to say the least, or just sit back, enjoy the ride and learn something new instead of shooting down everything and being negative about the whole process.

My ducks are just fine. put up something of substance rather than weak strawmen and there might be something to discuss.
 
radioplayer said:
One more for you Dr. Grey:

We're talking about the Fairness Doctrine, not elections. Look at the Congress and what are they talking about right now? The Fairness Doctrine and re-invigoration of it. Like it or not, it's an eventual reality. Something's going to come from the hearings that both the FCC and the Congress are doing. People are tired of the entertainment-based, so-called "news" shows like Rush that takes material and distorts it all over the dial. They are also tired of the current atmosphere that's both on the airwaves and in politics in general. That's the latest news and those are the facts. Rush won't give you the news and shows like his or even on Air America, only distortion of it. In the case of Rush, that only propgates his show and his interests, which in the end is all about his wallet getting much bigger, along with the company who owns the rights to the show and those who air his distortions everyday. I pick on Rush only because he's the most obvious one of all. There are many others doing the same thing.

Who in their right mind thinks Rush's show is news? it is political entertainment and nothing more, just like O'Reilly, Hanity & Colms, Chris Matthews, Bill Mahar, etc. They discuss news, but for entertainment value. If people don't want that kind of programming, they don't have to listen to it...there are plenty of other stations out there. There is nothing "fair", right or just in using the guns of the federal government to interfere with that private property right.
 
Grey,

You have way too much time on your hands. I've offered something that could work that at l makes some attempt to correct the imbalance. What was your solution? NOTHING from what I recall. Let's just distrust everything (particularly the Govt') and leave things screwed up the way they are now! Nice.

Perhaps you ought to elaborate a little more and focus on the subject. That would be a refreshing change. You appear to have all the time in the world from what I can tell.
 
GRAYWOLF said:
Who in their right mind thinks Rush's show is news? it is political entertainment and nothing more, just like O'Reilly, Hanity & Colms, Chris Matthews, Bill Mahar, etc. They discuss news, but for entertainment value. If people don't want that kind of programming, they don't have to listen to it...there are plenty of other stations out there. There is nothing "fair", right or just in using the guns of the federal government to interfere with that private property right.

Finally! An intelligent response. Gray: MOST PEOPLE DO BELIEVE that Rush (and others/thanks for the naming some examples) is "the News" and even producers of this entertainment go on to promote their so-called news material as "the real truth" (like there's something hidden...those evil media folks!) further empahisizing that THEY only they know the right news to tell you....kinda scary when you think about it don't you think?

Glad to see that you picked up on the fact that Rush and others like him are running purely entertainment programming. Too bad they don't run a disclaimer making it more evident for the faithful followers who flock to hear this stuff everytime it airs.
 
Oh, Please...

Player, just how stupid do you think that the American people are?

Rush is NEWS? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.

As far as your perceived "imbalance" is concerned, it sure did prevent the Dems from sweeping to power in the House and Senate, right? Just like Rush is preventing the Dems from raising LOTS more money than the Reps in the Presidential race.

The problems associated with your solution far outweigh any real benefit.

The "Fairness" Doctrine is dead - as it should be.
 
Yeah, the American people are so stupid that there needs to be the following disclaimer "what you are listening to is entertainment. Do not believe a word of it. Vote Democratic".
 
An unfortunately large number of people tune to such shows to hear the news with the spin they want.

Never underestimate the depth and breadth of stupidity.

On the other hand, there is a dearth of outlets and/or entertainers/moderators providing a balanced perspective.

And yes, the fd is a penalty invoked on radio and tv alone, in exchange for being granted a license to make money using
a resource belonging to the public, which needs such a valuable resource to be used fairly.

Who decides what's fair? That always was the problem. The PD? The news director? The on-air guy?
All of them did, in various places. Many places steered clear of all divisive issues entirely.
But any who chose to editorialize figured out some way to decide what was fair.
It also kept each individual on the air a bit more circumspect in their editorializing.
 
Clearly Unclear

Tom Wells said:
Who decides what's fair? That always was the problem. The PD? The news director? The on-air guy?
All of them did, in various places. Many places steered clear of all divisive issues entirely.
But any who chose to editorialize figured out some way to decide what was fair.
It also kept each individual on the air a bit more circumspect in their editorializing.

In other words, most stations avoided editorializing. The ones that did largely produced pap. The American public did not end up more informed.

There is no dearth of outlets for opinion. In reality, between the Internet and cable TV, we're bombarded by an overload of both opinion and information.

If the public chooses to listen to Rush, or Randi, or NPR, or any of the dozens of "pundits", isn't that their right? Should they be forced to listen to the Aryan Nations, or Louis Farakhan, or whatever left/right wing nutjobs claim to have an "under-represented" and/or dissenting point-of-view?

Be careful what you ask for. You may get more than you bargained for.
 
radioplayer said:
I've offered something that could work that at l makes some attempt to correct the imbalance.

your perceived imbalance is what the listeners want, otherwise, rating would make things change.

What was your solution?

Free market, it hasn't been tried.

NOTHING from what I recall.

Selective memory.

Let's just distrust everything (particularly the Govt')

Would you continue to take your car to a mechanic that takes your money and makes half-assed repairs while screwing other things up? Why not, that is what you are asking us to do to rely on the Government to do something!

and leave things screwed up the way they are now! Nice.

You can lie about my previous posts all you want, but the proof is in the posts.

Perhaps you ought to elaborate a little more and focus on the subject.

Just because you choose to deny reality, doesn't make your statements true.

That would be a refreshing change.

You bothering to read my posts would be a refreshing change!


radioplayer said:
Finally! An intelligent response.

I make them all the time. You should try reading my posts!

Gray: MOST PEOPLE DO BELIEVE that Rush (and others/thanks for the naming some examples) is "the News"

Most people think there is a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats. too. Most people think the government can do their job correctly, despite an entire history to the contrary.

and even producers of this entertainment go on to promote their so-called news material as "the real truth" (like there's something hidden...those evil media folks!) further empahisizing that THEY only they know the right news to tell you....

And producers try to tell us that ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, FNC, MSNBC, NPR, etc, etc, etc is unbiased. The job of marketing is to lie to people and convince them to consume their product.


Glad to see that you picked up on the fact that Rush and others like him are running purely entertainment programming.

That is old news.

Too bad they don't run a disclaimer making it more evident for the faithful followers who flock to hear this stuff everytime it airs.

Too bad the public isn't responsible enough to see it for themselves. No amount o fgovernment interference will change that, quite the opposite!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom