Bring Back The Fairness Doctrine

[SirRoxalot]

"Fairness" Isn't the Problem

To quote from the article cited:

Talk and the angry right are a slice of America, not about to change — but probably not about to grow, either. The more extreme they become, the less they are a factor in American life. Even Limbaugh has lost some of his influence as he is outshouted by imitators.

The left cannot and should not copy or regulate them; the real need for broadcast reform is elsewhere.

Concentrated ownerships dominate radio, forcing national programming into markets where local voices once prevailed. One company — Clear Channel — owns more than 1,200 radio stations; other chains monopolize small markets. Programming is fed from central locations; most stations offer little local content. Syndicated talkers get massive audiences from chains, which set the agenda for local audiences who might like another choice.

Aside from the fact that Clear Channel no longer owns more than 1,200 radio stations, the comments about chains monopolizing small markets is dead on. Another problem is that the chains are not only owners, but content providers. In the past, networks were - and are - prohibited from 24/7 ownership of a local station's airwaves. When the owner IS the network, that prohibition goes away.

If there was a local content mandate, the market would more likely determine the content of that portion of the broadcast day. Hosts who have to walk out of the building and shop, eat, and interact with the local audience are more likely to modify their views to reflect the local community at large. Sure, some of them don't mind being derided or even hated, but most people prefer to be liked.

Breaking up the monopoly in small markets - or de facto monopoly in some larger markets - would go a long way to resolving the issue. More voices mean more opinions.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

Re: "Fairness" Isn't the Problem

Breaking up the monopoly in small markets - or de facto monopoly in some larger markets - would go a long way to resolving the issue. More voices mean more opinions.

The best and only constitutional way to do that is to stop listening. Tune in to the few locally owned stations. The big guys will start trying to emulate. If that doesn't work, they will sell and the "monopoly" will be busted.

 

[radioplayer]

Re: "Fairness" Isn't the Problem

Breaking up the monopoly in small markets - or de facto monopoly in some larger markets - would go a long way to resolving the issue. More voices mean more opinions.

The best and only constitutional way to do that is to stop listening. Tune in to the few locally owned stations. The big guys will start trying to emulate. If that doesn't work, they will sell and the "monopoly" will be busted.

Where are the "few locally owned stations" at anymore??? Pick a market of some size and stature please. Most of the smaller ones are now run by one, perhaps two owners of bigger groups. (Saga, Emmis etc.,) Top 20 markets are typically clustered to 3, maybe 4 owners in most places. (Entercom, Bonneville, Infinity/CBS, CC, etc.) Sir six has it right: radio today is not market driven; duopolies to the point where there is very little (if ANY) diversity of voices.

There is precedent for breaking down monopolies and the chilling effect that it is having on the current landscape. Reinstatement of a modified forum of the FD would help alleviate the issues and allow for more opinions on the airwaves. The other would be to knock down this insane idea that less is better with regards to owners and open up the broadcast media to a variety of voices again. That's the American way at work and that is what has made the country better Graywolf, NOT Corporate media giants and one-owner markets with only profit as their agenda.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Bring Back Ownership Limits

The Fairness Doctrine is, from a practical standpoint, unworkable. The reasons are legion, and have been repeated endlessly on this overlong thread.

Ownership limits, however, are very workable. They worked for a very long time prior to 1996. An opportunity was missed when CC decided to divest in small markets. Unfortunately, they were allowed to sell their small-market monopolies intact to other owners. The only shift in ownership may come because some of the purchasers already had stations in those markets, and the weakest stations will be spun off to new owners - which will do nothing to break the de facto monopolies that exist in some markets.

Competition can solve the perceived problem. The problem is reviving competition, not the "Fairness" doctrine.

 

[Tom Wells]

Do you really think the competition will be for the highest standards of news, comprehensive information and intelligent discourse?

As long as the bottom line is money, with no guiding factor such as a fairness doctrine, we will never see radio/tv take on such a responsibility.

If the current situiation is good, why not broadcast porn, it could save over-the-air tv.

Explain why the lazy but profitable mode we currently enjoy is better for the people of the US.

Buried in entertainment choices, our broadcast media now must present biased news to satisfy those who
dare not be disturbed by having to learn. We are as a nation, scared to have an open mind.
We are too lazy to look for truth, when we can buy it at the store with a respected label, or partake of
a media outlet with our favorite brand of truth.

 

[GRAYWOLF]

Re: "Fairness" Isn't the Problem

Where are the "few locally owned stations" at anymore??? Pick a market of some size and stature please.

Is DFW a big enough market for you? (I can't speak for other markets...I don't know them well enough.)

KHYI (and their sister station)...

There are some others, but I have to get out the door...I'll try to remember to pick this up later.

 

[TexasTom]

Re: "Fairness" Isn't the Problem

Where are the "few locally owned stations" at anymore??? Pick a market of some size and stature please.

Is DFW a big enough market for you? (I can't speak for other markets...I don't know them well enough.)

KHYI (and their sister station)...

There are some others, but I have to get out the door...I'll try to remember to pick this up later.

That's a pretty poor choice for an example -- KHYI isn't exactly a "full signal" station, since it only covers the northern suburbs.

I *can* think of a few locally owned stations that actually have decent signals: KING(FM) Seattle/Tacoma (owned by a local foundation to preserve the Classical format), WRR(FM) Dallas/Fort Worth (owned by the city of Dallas), and KKDA-AM/FM Dallas/Fort Worth (locally owned Urban stations). If we stretch the definition of "local", then we might include KOMO-AM/TV/KPLZ(FM) in Seattle/Tacoma and WFAA(TV) in Dallas/Fort Worth -- stations owned by regional or national media companies that are based in those respective markets.

None of which supports your point -- or undercuts SirRoxalot's point -- more competition and a greater number of competing owners in each market is the answer. Seattle/Tacoma and Dallas/Fort Worth are both large markets with a large number of full-market AM, FM, and TV stations, and yet each has only one or two locally owned stations that have competitive signals. In each market, the market (based on audience) share in radio is dominated by two or three companies. There's no valid reason that this should be allowed. And there sure as heck is no reason to believe that it is in the public interest. Remember, markets the size of these were profitable before the massive consolidation was allowed. Maybe less profitable than after consolidation was allowed...but also, the programming was way more interesting when 20 separate owners were going head to head.

Competition is good -- while profits may drop, listeners will benefit by a vibrant marketplace. Breaking up the ownership concentration in radio and TV would increase competition. I find it strange that the alleged advocates of the free market seem to be the ones who oppose measures that would increase competition.

 

[gr8oldies]

OK, let's say we're going to rebuild the previous system. Are you sure you want to do that? Because what you have to do is get companies who make their living in some other business to decide they want to buy 12 AM stations and 12 FM stations in 12 different markets, build 12 sets of studios, hire 12 sales staffs,traffic people (logs and billing), 12 General Managers, 12 Program Directors and presumably, 12 on-air staffs. Who is going to interest Progressive Insurance, Wells Fargo Mortgage, Goodyear Tire, Verizon Wireless and other large companies to buy these stations. The big, well-known stations with large staffs were owned by companies like these as tax write-offs, and perhaps, prestige items. If you have 20 owners in a market, spot rates drop to a dollar a holler and no one makes any money otherwise. So we still have "evil big corporations promoting a corporate agenda" just not broadcasting companies.

OK, so the smaller ones go to small business owners. Small business owners are notably conservative. So they're going to drop Rush, Hannity, et al to bring in untried liberal hosts? Only if they want to commit immediate financial suicide!


If the idea of stirring the ownership pot is "diversity on the airwaves" you have to convince me that owners are willing to take a financial bath to put more "diverse" programs on the air. Remember, in the "hallowed days" there was no satellite radio, no iPods, no internet and all that other competition that's out there for the ad dollar.

Tom, your arrogance and contempt for average citizens is showing badly. We need a fairness doctrine because people are too stupid and have to have liberal elites like you tell them what to think about everything. If you want to scrap the entire US broadcasting system for a completely government controlled one, you might get what you want. Of course you have to shut the internet down too.

 

[Tom Wells]

You misunderstand me if you think I am being arrogant.
Please drop any current-issue baggage regarding the fd or anything else and try to think in your best "idealistic mode".
Don't try to weasel out by saying there are no ideals. It boils down to our ideals, what we value, what we live.
I hate to classify myself into categories.
I am a good deal more conservative than you might imagine.
I don't like anyone telling me or anyone else what to think. I don't think anyone is stupid.
I see/hear a lot of radio/tv treating us as though we're stupid.

You're quite correct about the likely financial repercussions.
I would rather see avoidance of divisive issues than see them used to further polarize our society.

Are you arguing that it should NOT be possible to try to be fair, or that commercial viability simply ought to
trump objectivity in every decision?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Diversity of Options

I never said to bring back the days of 7-7-7, or 12-12-12. I am saying that having small markets with only one out-of-town owner dedicated to turning that small-market radio station into a larger-market rimshot is wrong. I also think that 24/7 syndication or VT is wrong, simply because it doesn't serve the "public interest, convenience, or necessity". I'm all for imposing mandatory percentages of local content based on market size. Smaller markets need at least 33% local content. Major markets need at least 66% local content.

Trying to created "synergy" by buying up all the small markets in a region, then force-feeding them satellite syndication or big-city voicetracking failed to serve the public. CC found out that their model didn't work anyway - which is why they sold off those small markets. Some operators have tried to string together several small markets into a regional network, with regional news & some local programming. I can live with that.

The current ownership limits - which are lower than proposed a few years ago - leave us with medium markets where there are only two or three owners. Even NYC, with 39 rated signals, has CBS with 6 signals, Clear Channel with 6 signals, Emmis with 3, Univision with 3, and Barnstable with 3. OK, even given that Barnstable is actually a Long Island broadcaster that has a minor impact, half the stations are in the hands of 4 owners.

Barnstable, BTW, owns six stations on Long Island. Want to talk about concentration of ownership?

I fully understand the problems that led to concentration of ownership in the first place. There were radio stations that were not making money. There's an easy solution to that. If you can't make money within the license period, you have to sell the radio station. If nobody can make money, let it go dark and free up the frequency so that somebody else 50 miles away can make money. I'd rather see a station go dark than just be used as tax write-off.

If you have more competition, you will have more diversity. That makes a lot more sense than trying to determine "fairness".

 

[gr8oldies]

Rox, if you remember the "good old days", far from providing multiple format choices, the competition resulted oin some markets having six A/C or Beautiful Music stations and very few other format choices. Why? Because the companies that owned them had to use their only facility to go after the most profitable slice of the demographic pie that was available. There was no room for formats that didn't perform. There always were rimshot or lower-powered "format of the month club" members that went through multiple owners trying to find a niche. And, believe it or not, there were plenty of surrounding stations trying to make a buck in the big city.

33% local for small markets and 66% local for large markets? That may be easy to define for news/talk (but where does Celina, OH come up with a talk show host or two to fulfill the quota? You also have to define "Local" for music stations. Is the fact that the hard drive is located in the city of license sufficient? You certainly aren't suggesting the bar bands all come to the studio and play every day in place of recorded music. What's the quota of time that a station employee must be speaking live into a microphone in the studio, and what is that person required to say? What about formats that work just fine without DJs, and whose listeners don't want DJs (yes, sad to say, there are those folks who could care less about anything a DJ has to say). You have to define all of that to make it workeable. As for stations having to sell if they can't make money in the license term, what financial institution in their right mind (OK I can think of one but bet they know better now) would finance a purchase of a station that has lost money xx number of years straight. If the station goes dark, the listeners have lost a choice, but under the wing of a company that an spread costs around, that choice stays around.

Tom, my idealism would still say that citizens of a free country have the right to make their entertainment and information choices without government attempting to spoonfeed them "what they need". If that means Ed Schultz beats Sean Hannity so be it at vice versa. People also have a right to tune out news and talk if they choose. You say you'd rather have all political talk eliminated than have the current hosts on the air. That's a little like me saying that I can't stand "American idol" and since TV stations affiliated with ABC are also licensed to serve the "public interest, convenience and neccessity" all that sometimes good, sometimes bad singing as well as Simon Cowell should be taken off the air,and no matter what the ratings are, the fact that Simon Cowell criticizes these singers sometimes harshly, the "public good" should override people's free choice to watch or not watch American Idol.
In your ideal world, who would even decide what coverage was "fair" or "balanced? A government beauracrat? Does that official change with every election? The editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post? Ted Turner? The United Nations?

You're never going to turn the clock back to 1967 and go back to a handful of journalists deciding what's important every day and no rebuttal. That genie is not going to be stuffed back into the bottle. If Rush's audience is 20 million, its a sure bet he could sell at least 5 million of them satellite radios if his show was taken off terrestrial radio.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Media Concentration

Rox, if you remember the "good old days", far from providing multiple format choices, the competition resulted oin some markets having six A/C or Beautiful Music stations and very few other format choices. Why? Because the companies that owned them had to use their only facility to go after the most profitable slice of the demographic pie that was available.

Once again, I'm not proposing limiting owners to one station in a market. I am proposing a lowering of ownership caps, using variables based on market size. We don't have to go back to 1975, but the FCC went too far in 1996, and tried to go way too far a few years back.

33% local for small markets and 66% local for large markets? That may be easy to define for news/talk (but where does Celina, OH come up with a talk show host or two to fulfill the quota?

I guess that Celina, OH would have to hire two full-time news/talk people - one for mornings, and one for afternoon drive. The community might actually have local news available on the radio during a third of the day. When I came up, it wasn't unusual for the morning news guy to come in a 4AM, make the calls to the local PDs, and update packages from yesterday's afternoon reporter. The afternoon drive newsman came in at Noon, updated the morning stories, did a shift, then covered local government & meetings in the evening. A part-timer, or stringer was a bonus when meetings overlapped.

Maybe the percentages need to be tweaked, with reduced percentages on weekends, but I don't think that you can truly serve the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" without a local presence.

You also have to define "Local" for music stations. Is the fact that the hard drive is located in the city of license sufficient?

Yup. Locally programmed music off a local hard drive. Live body in the studio in the city of license. How much that live body talks is up to the local programmer.

You certainly aren't suggesting the bar bands all come to the studio and play every day in place of recorded music.

I certainly am not suggesting that.

As for stations having to sell if they can't make money in the license term, what financial institution in their right mind (OK I can think of one but bet they know better now) would finance a purchase of a station that has lost money xx number of years straight. If the station goes dark, the listeners have lost a choice, but under the wing of a company that an spread costs around, that choice stays around.

If the station doesn't have enough listeners to be economically viable, it might as well go dark and free up that frequency for another operator, or for another nearby community that's underserved. I'm betting that a lot of stations that conglomerates are operating at a loss for tax purposes, or to protect one of their cash cows, would become economically viable in a hurry.

As far as a return to the Fairness Doctrine is concerned, we appear to generally be in agreement.

 

[FOZZIE BEAR]

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?

HOLY HELL! BRAVO!!!

I love these people who cry about wanting the Fairness Doctrine put back into place. If you don' like what your hearing... CHANGE THE DAMN CHANNEL. We all know that if ANY DEMOCRAT wanted to be on with RUSH or any other Republican mouth piece... all they would have to do is ask or call. However, if you are a NOBODY... chances are that you won't get on. Why? Cuz it's THEIR SHOW. Not yours. Love them or hate them... it's their show. You don't like what they have to say... come on, say it with me.... CHANGE THE DAMN CHANNEL. Or better yet... if you have something to say... GET YOUR OWN SHOW. It amazes me that people would truly want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. That is a very scary thing.

 

[FreddyE1977]

regardless of your political views on any issue, I think we all need to carefully consider whether we want to entrust the future of free speech on the airwaves to nattering FCC bureaucrats, and their paymasters....corrupt, addle-brained, self-interested members of Congress. Regardless of how irritated you may feel about anything that is said on the radio, the alternatives for regulating it are far worse!

 

[radioplayer]

HOLY HELL! BRAVO!!!

I love these people who cry about wanting the Fairness Doctrine put back into place. If you don' like what your hearing... CHANGE THE DAMN CHANNEL. We all know that if ANY DEMOCRAT wanted to be on with RUSH or any other Republican mouth piece... all they would have to do is ask or call. However, if you are a NOBODY... chances are that you won't get on. Why? Cuz it's THEIR SHOW. Not yours. Love them or hate them... it's their show. You don't like what they have to say... come on, say it with me.... CHANGE THE DAMN CHANNEL. Or better yet... if you have something to say... GET YOUR OWN SHOW. It amazes me that people would truly want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. That is a very scary thing.

Well, I see that you aren't up to speed on a very important court case regarding this issue. In Red Lion vs. the FCC, the Supreme Court said it this way:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

In other words (once more) the airwaves are the publics, not the BROADCASTERS......and they in turn are in for a lease of our spectrum only, not to OWN or dictate. They take on the responsible choice to be fair with regards to issues in their communities, to offer and serve to the public, opposing views of the day as well. Service is the other key word of the day.

An FCC license does NOT entitle that broadcaster to serve only their "left or right" grind of political, cultural rhetorical babble all over the countryside folks. Unfortunately, the money's the only reason today that this garbage is still on the air and it's also the very sad REASON that the Fairness Doctrine has not been reinstated. Changing the channel? No thanks. I'd rather change the climate and seriously restore the quality of programming instead of keeping error-filled, political hate on my airwaves, thank you.

 

[TomT]

And how many stations are in the York, Pa market now compared with back in 1969 when the Red Lion decision came down?

Not to mention cable channels, XM. Sirius, etc.

Key to Red Lion was the scarcity of available voices in that market.

 

[gr8oldies]

P;ayer..just admit that you want to eliminate people's free choice as to what they listen to or watch. Which you can't because that off switch is just a few inches away.

 

[Tom Wells]

I am sure that Radioplayer like myself, wants to PROVIDE free choice totally divorced from anyone's "sensibilities" regarding profitability.

No one should have to scour every single choice on the air to find an "alternate" opinion to what is supported by the status quo.

"Truth" comes in many flavors, many that we individually may not care for.

Suggesting that ONLY the opinion of "big money" ( profitablility entrenched ) is worthy of being heard is only another way of
"eliminating people's free choice as to what they listen to or watch".

Let's not go into "conservative vs liberal" as this cuts both ways.

Doesn't matter how many choices we have added since 1969. I don't really like dealing with anyone who prefers wearing blinders
so they don't have to deal with ideas that might upset their tidy little world-view.
Sticking one's head in the sand or preferring a "deliberately ignorant" delivery of media is the model of a dictatorship, not a democracy.

 

[gr8oldies]

OK, Tom, explain how you're going to force people to not turn the dial or hit the off button when a host comes on they don't like or agree with?

 

[Tom Wells]

We don't force people to do things that are wise and good. If they haven't the sense to listen to things they don't agree with, we can safely assume they have a closed mind and can already find someone who will tell them want they'd like to hear.

What's missing is media willing to explore the various sides to polar issues while remaining above the fray.

We can't force people to brush their teeth or eat a balanced diet either. If they choose not to, they shall surely reap the reward.