Conservative Bloggers Attack Localism

[smedge2006]

The ongoing debate over the "alleged" campaign to bring back the Fairness Doctrine has now morphed. Conservative bloggers, led by the National Review, are declaring that the FCC's "localism" proposals are a way to force liberalism onto talk radio -- effectively enlisting movement conservatives to serve as a catspaw to the NAB's efforts to nullify the public outcry at last year's FCC media hearings.

As Radio-Info has had a long running debate over localism apart from the FD and ideology issues, I thought some of the folks here might want to share their opinions with some of these bloggers:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWI5ZGRlZGZkNjc1YjY0NTU2YmNkYTQ2ZmI2ZTdhZjA=

http://netizennewsbrief.blogspot.com/2008/07/there-should-be-no-fairness-doctrine.html

http://techliberation.com/2008/06/25/fairness-doctrine-debate-less-and-more-than-meets-the-eye/

http://rightcal.blogspot.com/2008/06/boehner-vs-fcc.html

http://777denny.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/democrats-are-coming-to-censor-free-speech-with-the-fairness-doctrine/

Be civil, now.

 

[robbbc]

The McCain link is dead (is that Ironic?). I wonder if McCain supports some of this stuff (he being a fan of LPFM and no friend of Rush).
The rest of them: few comments and boilerplate remarks from conservatives. Where was the NRO response area? The comments I read were civil but from the listing here I don't see any over the top debate. Seems the right wingers aren't as interested in the subject as their radio station owners are. Hard to be all evils of indecency one day, and supportive of an acivist FCC- then switcharoo the next calling for an unfettered market. I read through Boortz's book at bdalton recently and it had all this in it- but as usual he glossed over way too much and his writing is nothing but red meat (Such phrases as : "a bed wetting liberal" ooh boy can he write).

 

[willcail]

I volunteer at a local LPFM station WCRS FM 102.1/98.3 as a on air announcer/station programmer. There is nothing worng in having community radio stations. There is a large Somali population in Columbus and WCRS LPFM have three hours of Somali radio shows on the weekend to fill that need. Plus there is a need for more local shows than syndicated fare. Conservitives just want one point of view on the radio and it must be theirs. No I don't want the fairness doctrne back, but diversity is needed on the radio. No wonder radio is in trouble.

 

[Biz Listener]

The ongoing debate over the "alleged" campaign to bring back the Fairness Doctrine has now morphed. Conservative bloggers, led by the National Review, are declaring that the FCC's "localism" proposals are a way to force liberalism onto talk radio -- effectively enlisting movement conservatives to serve as a catspaw to the NAB's efforts to nullify the public outcry at last year's FCC media hearings.

You sound surprised that things have "morphed". The old "fairness doctrine" is dead. There will not be a Fairness Doctrine II. There is a good chance that there will be new rules and regulations, if not actual legislation, proposed and possibly adopted that will produce the same effect as a return of the old fairness doctrine.

If some people recognize that the false flag of "localism" is being used to mask the attempts to stifle conservative talk radio, good for them! No one should be surprised if those on the right recognize the use of "localism" as a trojan horse to scale back conservative talk radio. And no one should be surprised when those on the left attempt to promote the myth that the cries of localism are not about hurting talk radio.

Both sides want to win. That's what being on a side is all about. Both sides are doing whatever they can think of to prevail. That's how competition works. No one should be surprised if someone who sees himself as a champion of one side or the other does what he can to help his side win.

No one knows what the attempts to force more "local" content on radio stations might entail. Who knows, maybe they'll just pass a rule for radio like the one they passed for television a few decades back that took 7:30 PM to 8:00 PM away from the networks in favor of "local" programming. That created a real goldmine for sitcom syndicators. If they attempt to impose a rule that all radio stations must broadcast local content from noon to 3:00 PM EST every day, I think it will be clear what the goal is.

 

[gr8oldies]

Some of the proposed "localism" rules will do nothing but mandate that groups lease five office spaces instead of one, and that staff members pretend that it's 1976 and drive at $4 a gallon gas prices among several far flung studios. Just because you plop someone in a chair in the hometown, doesn't make it "local" and also doesn't force listeners to listen to it.

 

[smedge2006]

If some people recognize that the false flag of "localism" is being used to mask the attempts to stifle conservative talk radio, good for them! No one should be surprised if those on the right recognize the use of "localism" as a trojan horse to scale back conservative talk radio. And no one should be surprised when those on the left attempt to promote the myth that the cries of localism are not about hurting talk radio.

Thanks for confirming what I've always suspected -- conservatives are deeply against local radio. At some level, movement conservatives cheer corporate radio for clearing out the radio studios of America, destroying the businesss model of hometown broadcasting and disconnecting the most grassroots of media from its grass roots. I remember a local conservative talk radio host -- who got fired in a station mega-consolidation to favor a syndicated host and couldn't figure it out for the life of him -- the movement he supported, wanted him and his counterparts put out of business.

All those people who took part in FCC hearings around the country complaining about what has happened to local media were just stooges for the Democrats, Daily Kos, George Soros, whatever... :

Those who rose to power declaring "the best government is closest to the people" now proclaim that the best radio is farthest away from the people...

Some of the proposed "localism" rules will do nothing but mandate that groups lease five office spaces instead of one, and that staff members pretend that it's 1976 and drive at $4 a gallon gas prices among several far flung studios. Just because you plop someone in a chair in the hometown, doesn't make it "local" and also doesn't force listeners to listen to it.

The same technology that made consolidation possible can also make deconsolidation possible. Use those computer networks they spent billions to build in a decentralized way instead of hub and spoke.... One thing we do know is... they'll never make it local from the consolidated studios 80 miles away from the COL... with somebody who lives in the community, patronizes its business, worships in one of its churches and puts kids in its schools, there might be a chance...

 

[gr8oldies]

What some fail to realize is that population centers have changed since the original allocations were made decades ago, and what was once an independent community is often indistinguishable from the metro area its part of. In the case of my market (Dayton, Ohio), several cities which have radio stations licensed to them only became cities to thwart the city of Dayton's aggressive annexation plans in the 1970s.they'd have been perfectly happy to have remained townships otherwise. people who live in Englewood don't considr themselves as "from Englewood' and not part of the whole region in the sense of having gone to school there, built their home their and do all of their living, shopping, working and playing solely within the confines of that town. If the "localism" rules go into effect, OK, CC builds studios in Englewood, Kettering, and Beavercreek. You really think you could make all of those people listen to "the Beavercreek station "when they still work in the city and other suburbs ( not to mention not enough mom and pop businesses to support it!). Even when the University of Dayton owned Kettering-licensed WLQT (as WVUD) even THEY never had studios in that inner-ring suburb.

 

[Biz Listener]

Thanks for confirming what I've always suspected -- conservatives are deeply against local radio. At some level, movement conservatives cheer corporate radio for clearing out the radio studios of America, destroying the businesss model of hometown broadcasting and disconnecting the most grassroots of media from its grass roots. I remember a local conservative talk radio host -- who got fired in a station mega-consolidation to favor a syndicated host and couldn't figure it out for the life of him -- the movement he supported, wanted him and his counterparts put out of business.

One anecdotal example does not proof make, especially an anonymous anecdotal example. Conservatives are neither for nor against local radio. They are in favor of successful business models working and unsuccessful ones failing. Conservatives don't much care whether the voice they hear on the radio comes from someone sitting miles away or someone sitting across town so much as they care that the voice they hear sounds good. And guess what? Liberals feel the same way.

Most conservatives and most liberals would rather go to the movies to see a show starring really top-flight actors than go see a local community theatre play. Most conservatives and most liberals would rather listen to recordings of a really top-flight talent than to the drunks at karaoke night at the local bar. Most conservatives and most liberals would rather watch a football game between two NFL teams than a football game between two semi-pro sandlot teams. It's about perceived quality, not whether it's local or not.

All those people who took part in FCC hearings around the country complaining about what has happened to local media were just stooges for the Democrats, Daily Kos, George Soros, whatever... :

You said that, I didn't. I'd have said that whenever things are a certain way, there are those who want them to be different will go whine and kvetch to the government to make things different. Those who are happy with the way things are won't.

Those who rose to power declaring "the best government is closest to the people" now proclaim that the best radio is farthest away from the people...

No, those who rose to power declaring that "he governs best who governs least" now proclaim that "he governs best who governs least."

 

[cm454]

While I am no fan of "all-conservative, all the time", the idea of the *fairness doctrine* is absurd.

Trying to quantify the content of a station for the purposes of rebuttal is not only impractical, it is also downright impossible---unless you only attach it to stations whose shows are right-wing without the slightest exception on any given issue. Plus, you just KNOW that any station can play games with how these rebuttals are aired. Ever heard a public affairs show outside of that Sunday morning no-man's land between 5-7 A.M.?

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

If talkradio is to be a reflection of the avergae American, which it mostly IS NOT at this point, this change would have to come about as the result of a programmer being rational in approach rather than a lazy follow-the-leader type.

 

[jimwalsh2001]

If talkradio is to be a reflection of the avergae American, which it mostly IS NOT at this point, this change would have to come about as the result of a programmer being rational in approach rather than a lazy follow-the-leader type.

Amen. ;D

 

[willcail]

Himm there was no such thing as 4 dollar a gallon of gas in 1976. (BTW 4 dollar a gallon is cheaper than the UK)[EDIT]
This is supposed to be the public airwaves and not all members of the America public are conservitives.


[EDIT-baiting]

 

[Biz Listener]

Himm there was no such thing as 4 dollar a gallon of gas in 1976. (BTW 4 dollar a gallon is cheaper than the UK)[EDIT]
This is supposed to be the public airwaves and not all members of the America public are conservitives.
[EDIT-baiting]

Not all members of the American public like country western music. Yet there are stations that broadcast nothing but country music. And surprisingly, no one is attempting to get laws passed to provide equal time for other musical genres. Some markets in this nation have absolutely no stations that broadcast classical music at all! None, Zero, Zilch, Zip, Nada. Aren't fans of classical music entitled to have their favorite kind of music if they want to listen to it? They're part of the public. Shouldn't they get a piece of the public airwaves dedicated to what they want to hear?

If you're going to demand that all sectors of the public must have a radio station that caters to their personal tastes, then you should be consistent and insist that all sectors get what they want.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Talk Radio has chosen to distance itself from other forms of broadcasting which are basically entertainment. The wheels fall off your logic in that the hosts of classical music, rock, jazz, country programs are not going on their shows and attacking those people who do not agree with their music genre, music hosts are not "poisoning" people minds by referring to listeners of other music as 'feminazis' and 'eco-terrorists' and planting in the minds of younger listeners that such attack and insult language is proper civil discussion or proper humor.

If the hosts of polka broadcasts were spending all of their open mic time telling people who to vote for and what slime bags the political opponents were, and if the hosts of cowboy music shows were telling everyone to vote the other way, then you would be hearing complaints about "balancing the music."

The other thing that has changed in the last 40 years is that we can no longer tell when the religion programs have become political, and when the political talkers have decided to peddle religion.

One of two things will happen: Either the current Talk-Radio/Religion Info-mercials will KILL radio.... or the public will eventually rise up and we will see the most outrageous fight in congress you can ever imagine to somehow maintain freedom of speech and still force broadcasters to have a truth in labeling rule and put politics in this hour, religion in that hour, unbiased lecture on history in that hour.. etc, etc, etc.

 

[Biz Listener]

Talk Radio has chosen to distance itself from other forms of broadcasting which are basically entertainment. The wheels fall off your logic in that the hosts of classical music, rock, jazz, country programs are not going on their shows and attacking those people who do not agree with their music genre, music hosts are not "poisoning" people minds by referring to listeners of other music as 'feminazis' and 'eco-terrorists' and planting in the minds of younger listeners that such attack and insult language is proper civil discussion or proper humor.

If the hosts of polka broadcasts were spending all of their open mic time telling people who to vote for and what slime bags the political opponents were, and if the hosts of cowboy music shows were telling everyone to vote the other way, then you would be hearing complaints about "balancing the music."

The other thing that has changed in the last 40 years is that we can no longer tell when the religion programs have become political, and when the political talkers have decided to peddle religion.

One of two things will happen: Either the current Talk-Radio/Religion Info-mercials will KILL radio.... or the public will eventually rise up and we will see the most outrageous fight in congress you can ever imagine to somehow maintain freedom of speech and still force broadcasters to have a truth in labeling rule and put politics in this hour, religion in that hour, unbiased lecture on history in that hour.. etc, etc, etc.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't really hold water. The only way a broadcaster can poison peoples' minds is if those people are listening to them. Both political and religious talk radio do little more than preach to their respective choirs. The plain truth is that to people who agree with a political or religious talk show host, the talk is entertaining. Rush's schtick is entertainment for the people who agree with him. Since the people who listen to Rush already agree with him, he's not "poisoning" their minds.

Frankly, anyone who can't figure out what a political or religious talk show is about after listening for a minute or two is probably too stupid to even have a mind that could be poisoned.

 

[smedge2006]

Another example of the conservative attack on localism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/03/no-secret-agenda-on-fairness/

 

[Biz Listener]

Another example of the conservative attack on localism:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/03/no-secret-agenda-on-fairness/

That's interesting. Below is a link to prove the contention that "localism" is nothing but a stalking horse for a stealthy return of the Fairness Doctrine:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/03/no-secret-agenda-on-fairness/




Board Editor's Note:

Some posts in this topic have been moved to Take It Outside.

[iurl=http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=103903.0]http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=103903.0[/iurl]