Challenging the FCC regarding the Zapple doctrine?

[Casey]

I found an interesting read regarding a petition to the FCC to use the Zapple doctrine against conservative radio, which would supposedly force radio stations to provide equal air-time to both parties 60 days prior to the election. I thought Zapple died, but apparently not. Thoughts?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-wilson/talk-radio-fcc_b_1557201.html

 

[Tom Wells]

I don't think anyone seems to care anymore (until recently) that such a provision exists.

Seems most people now EXPECT that their chosen media outlet will not daily digust them with a
presentation of views from an alternate viewpoint, so what's the use of upsetting their stomach
during election time only?

In the current "image is more than substance" mode it would be a negative to a candidate who tries to use this.
I do recall that 30 years ago such calls for equal time particularly during elections, the public seemed to
understand and accept equal time requirements, but there was considerable dissent.

It must really annoy someone when they have constructed a nicely closed mind and then someone else comes along
and says things about things that they'd really rather not have to consider.

 

[TheBigA]

If "conservative talk shows are winning elections for the GOP," then what happened to President McCain?

And even with all the promotion the Wisconsin Governor is getting on conservative talk stations, the polls show the recall as a virtual dead heat. What it proves is just giving someone promotion on the airwaves won't change the way people think. And I think the FCC has a long history of staying out of programming issues.

If someone is being denied access to the airwaves, that's something that should be discussed. Her complaint doesn't have any documented evidence of anyone being denied access. Her complaint focuses on two radio stations, and ignores other media in the market. The Justice Department has already ruled in the Sirius XM merger that radio doesn't exist in a vacuum, that it operates among numerous other platforms.

She also mistakingly attributes this problem to the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Everyone knows that conservative talk radio predates the 96 Act by at least 8 years, maybe more. And many Clear Channel stations have aired progressive talk show hosts over the past 12 years. One can't equate access with popularity. Just because a candidate or point of view gets access doesn't mean anyone will listen. That is a bigger problem for someone like Wilson to face. Having said all that, I'd be shocked if anyone at the FCC sees this as their problem.

 

[MarshallKeith]

Sue is just trying to gin up support for the fairness doctrine. Only the candidates qualify for equal time and only to the point that the opposing candidate got. The Zapple Doctrine is about time bought on a station. I blogged on this subject where I quote an FCC attorney.
http://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/zapple-doctrine/

 

[country24]

The Zapple Doctrine applies to "political candidates," NOT "local talk radio hosts and their guests and callers" which the Huffington Post article is about. Candidates have no control over what local talk radio hosts and their guests and callers say and broadcasters have no responsibility to give candidates free time to respond to them. But the stations do give other listeners the opportunity to call in and disagree.

 

[TheBigA]

But the stations do give other listeners the opportunity to call in and disagree.

Some do, but it's not required.