Dems push fairness doctrine

[smedge2006]

WWAA was promoted all right, it received numerous write up's in the AJC prior to launch, billboards, and a partnership with the 2nd most read paper in the state ( Creative Loafing ) led to a show being hosted by the editor.

Puff pieces are easy to generate if you know how to work the system. Even dating the ugly radio columnist (assuming the opposite sex; most I've known are women) if necessary. Neal Boortz could have generated them dozens of times over the years if he wanted to. By the way, for comparison, here is the number of articles referencing a longtime conservative host in his home (top 20) market in a local newspaper's archives:

42

Here are the number of articles in that same newspaper's archives referencing his current radio station, which has ratings expressed below the decimal point:

212

How many times will you read that it was the threat of use of the Fairness Doctrine was sufficient to intimidate most broadcasters into avoiding any controversial political programming?

Only as many times as you care to type it, if even. Most broadcasters avoided controversial programming in the 60's because: a) they could still make money playing music, and b) hiring somebody intelligent enough to have opinions cost money, and hiring a whole staff to fill the day before syndication cost even more money. I heard a talk host estimate in 1975 that it took a market of at least 300 thousand people to support one local talk show host. That's ONE host in an otherwise all-music lineup.

Liberal talk was tested. It tested very badly. It might not have totally failed, but it only earned a "D", or maybe a "C-".

If we were comparing the Air America situation in many markets to a music test, it would be in an auditorium with bad acoustics and a broken-down sound system, with 98 percent of those present not participating because no one had told them the test had begun.

Also~ please explain that when it was reported that WWAA was in danger of being bought, and the 'save air america' movement began in earnest, why did not any wealthy liberals step up ( ala  Sheldon Drobny )? Do you not hink they are millionair libs in the city known for Ted Turner?

I would offer this informed speculation. The radio brokerage business is pretty chummy, and the Drobnys of the world were not at that time (and most still aren't) networked into the radio brokerage club. Ted Turner is off on his ranch somewhere and I suspect the last thing he wants is to get back into any media business. The "Save Air America" movement was anesthetized due in part to the dishonesty of the Weber organization when asked its plans for the station.

Franken coming to town is not "promotion" any more than its promotion when Neal Boortz goes to a city that carries his show to sign books. It's preaching to the choir. Promotion in my book is things like: stunts and campaigns to gain attention, high-visibility involvement in local issues,
street presence (it's important in talk as much as in music), and anything that generates CUME, not that keeps the P1s tuned in.

 

[evnlee]

OK, "minimal" promotion, if you prefer. A feature story or two in the paper. Puff pieces in the liberal "alternative" weekly. A few billboards? How many exactly and for how long?

I said in an earlier post, nobody beats Rush. I stand corrected. In Atlanta, Rush is a "failure." Clear Channel-owned WGST (with Rush) gets audience shares associated progressive talk stations in some markets.

The former Air America turnkey got audience shares comparable to Salem's talk station. Religious Conservative Talk, by your definition, must also be a "miserable failure," too. Then there's CBS Radio's Urban talk station down with fractional shares.

The amazing thing about WWAA is that they did as well as they did. In its time, it got most of a share point (like Salem and CBS), starting from scratch (compared to stations established for decades in their format). This is a station that now doesn't even appear in the Arbitron listings and never had an audience before Air America. It's best numbers ever were with Air America. The station started from scratch with no name recognition, at the "extreme" (one of the right's favorite words) upper end of the band. The signal was OK in the city and near suburbs but not comparable to WSB and WGST's "blow torch" signals at the lower end of the band. Upper band AM stations are generally marginal operations, no matter what they program; expanded band stations especially.

On top of that the station was hobbled with no local weekday programming and with Morning Sedition and Jerry Springer.

And how long did the owner give turnkey Air America? Talk radio stations take years to build an audience, including conservative talk stations. Years and a lot more consistent promotion that WWAA received.

But you want to make it all about politics. You seem to think "if you build it, they will come" applies to liberal talk. It doesn't apply to radio, any radio.

Speaking of feelings, what makes you "hate" the idea of liberal talk so much that you want to keep it off the radio and gloat about any of its setbacks? What is so frightening about what some liberal host has to say? Or are you just parroting some right-wing host?

see how easy it was to get you to change your tune about WWAA being 'not promoted'?

We had this same experiment with Smedge, and he ran off yelping, too. I'm not sure where you guys are getting your info, but it's clearly wrong.

a couple 'puff pieces'? Perhaps you should email Rodney Ho at the states largest paper and say 'he wrote a couple puff pieces'. he gave Air America plenty of coverage. Of course, Smedge will bring up how many more 'puff pieces' Boortz got. Of course he got more! He works for Cox, which OWNS THE PAPER, duh.

the fact is, Air America got slightly MORE press then other non-Cox talkers in the area got. You definitely had more coverage with the roll out of WWAA then you did with the roll outs of Dennis Miller, Laura Ingraham, or Dave Ramsey ( Westwood,Salem,CC ). Hands down.

The 'liberal alternative weekly'? Where should they promote Err Amerika? The National Review? They not only promoted the hell outta WWAA in the 'loaf, they gave the freekin editor his own weekend show! C'mon, fellas~ do you know how much ad space costs in the 2nd most read paper in the state? It aint cheap, and WWAA had a quarter page every week!

You are even wrong about the signal strength~ WWAA had a better signal then WGST. Ask the good people of Duluth.

Now as to the 'no local programming' well, they did give that on the weekends. BUt that is an actual fact, and I'll conceed that point.

The 'new owner' that some people love to hate, actually gave Franken airtime at the same time losers like Sledge were calling him a neo-con. All the way until Franken dove off that sinking ship.

As for your opinion that I 'hate libtalk ( which is such a lame and misused term by both the left and the right ) clearly you havent seen my numerous posts praising Spehanie Miller. I just hate 'bad libtalk'.

No matter what websites you guys are reading, the tale has already been told in Atlanta. Air America had every opportunity to succeed, but they failed miserably.

The liberal here ( like alot of places ) dont like the format.

 

[smedge2006]

Ran off yelping? You keep framing this like some middle-school playground fight. And some posters wonder why the rest of us want to deconstruct the mentalities and psyches of those who are so, so vociferous against liberal talk, waving the red herring and bloody shirt of the Fairness Doctrine, which is frankly quite unlikely at this point, and wouldn't be the end of the world if it passed in some form.

 

[Al Johnson]

What you describe does not qualify as "being promoted." You are unwilling to grasp the realities of the radio business. This station did not have every opportunity to succeed. Like most liberal talk start ups it had almost no opportunity to succeed. Under similar circumstances, no format and no programming would have succeeded on this station. But you need a reason to bash liberal talk, so make it about that.

OK, here's is why you should bash Air America:

They allowed their programs to end up on stations like WWAA where they didn't have a prayer.
They put on bad shows, mostly bad shows, in the beginning. But they started with one decent host (and dissed her completely early on).
They took inexperienced people and tried to copy Rush's act but with liberal opinions, rather than developing their own approach for liberal talk radio (which Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartmann have eventually done).

And if anybody is going to intimidate broadcasters and stifle conservative talk radio it will be the Rev Al and his fellow travelers in the PC police, not designated villains Pelosi and Kucinich.

Here's why you should bash the station owner.

He didn't give the station enough time.
He did not promote the station (or promote it sufficiently, if you prefer).
He didn't take Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz (maybe his automation system wasn't up to switching satellite channels).
He didn't do a local morning show worthy of top 10 market.
In short, he wasn't willing to go to any trouble or expense. He was just trying to run the station on the cheap with little involvement or effort, just like too many others in the biz.

But you jump to the conclusion that there is some inherent problem in the concept of the liberal talk format.

You keep framing this like some middle-school playground fight.

Well said.

I just did a Google News search on "Fairness Doctrine." Almost exclusively right-wing bloggers and talk show hosts are talking about it (and people here). The mainstream news media aren't reporting it (no recent stories in the news search time frame). Liberal bloggers and hosts aren't pushing it. Right wingers are making this an issue. Why? Because they need a threat so they can have something to rant about. The irony is by giving the idea all this attention, they may just make it happen.

And if anybody is going to intimidate broadcasters and stifle right wing talk radio, it's Al Sharpton and his fellow travelers in the PC police, not current designated villains Pelosi and Kucinich.

 

[evnlee]

Ran off yelping? You keep framing this like some middle-school playground fight. And some posters wonder why the rest of us want to deconstruct the mentalities and psyches of those who are so, so vociferous against liberal talk, waving the red herring and bloody shirt of the Fairness Doctrine, which is frankly quite unlikely at this point, and wouldn't be the end of the world if it passed in some form.

Smedge, I'm talking about when you posted on the Atlanta boards that Joe Weber, the new owner of WWAA ( soon to be WMLB ) had an agenda, and bought the signal to shut it down, (because he hated all the AAR hosts but Franken 'cause he was jewish ). When the rest of the board called you 'nuts', then you tried the whole 'no promotion' ploy. Either way , you tried too hard to blame the failure of AAR in Atlanta on anybody else but them. They stunk, they are no longer on the air because they were bad, and that's the fact, Jack.

They had the opportunity, and they failed.

 

[evnlee]

What you describe does not qualify as "being promoted." You are unwilling to grasp the realities of the radio business. This station did not have every opportunity to succeed. Like most liberal talk start ups it had almost no opportunity to succeed. Under similar circumstances, no format and no programming would have succeeded on this station. But you need a reason to bash liberal talk, so make it about that.

you are incorrect. This station had every chance to succeed as other stand alone start ups in the city. As a matter of fact, it had alot more going for it then some that are still on the air, and the 'doomed to failure, no promotion' comspiracy corner you guys dwell in is getting smaller every day.

 

[Al Johnson]

Just so I'm clear, what is the standard here for "miserable failure?"

The owner flips it?
The owner sells to somebody else and they flip it?
Any station with an AQH below 1.0? 2.0?

Is Salem a "miserable failure" with religious conservative talk? CBS with urban talk?
How about those two sports stations with far better dial positions and "brand awareness?"
In my book, any heritage station with 50kw on a low frequency and Rush that can't break into the top 10, let alone get over a two share qualifies as a "miserable failure."

Pop quiz:
Name all the turnkey stations with over a one share in any top 50 market?
Name all expanded band stations with over a one share in any top 50 market?

And you can joke about listeners wanting to "save" the format, but how many stations do you know that generate that kind of listener involvement? Most flips come and go with little notice. Sure, they were silly to get into the public radio mindset and look for a sugar daddy to bail them out. But smart advertisers know that kind of involvement and loyalty makes any station a more effective sales tool.

What other stand-alone start ups? There are two other stand-alones and they are cellar dwellers with comparable ratings. Next you'll tell us the Atlanta high school league champion has every chance to beat the Falcons.

But you have to make it all about politics.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I just did a Google News search on "Fairness Doctrine."

That makes sense. The term "fairness doctrine" is used as a generic term for any legislation that is intended as a new replacement for the old "Fairness Doctrine". It's used as a quick headline because the term "a piece of proposed legislation that would be somewhat similar to the old Fairness Doctrine except with a new name and some changes in the details" is too long to fit a headline.

The new legislation would have a new name, so no searches for the old name would turn up articles about legislation with the new name, unless the article contained both names.

It's sort of like the way that the term "liberal talk radio" was changed to "progressive talk radio". The latter was a shiny new name for the same tired old crap. Whenever the Democrat Party proposes their new legislation to achieve what they consider "fair", you can be sure they'll coin a new name for the new bill. It won't be called "Fairness Doctrine II". But regardless of whatever new name they use for their new legislation, a skunk by any other name would still stink.

 

[evnlee]

Just so I'm clear, what is the standard here for "miserable failure?"

how about 'not on the air'? :

after everything was hyped about how 'great' AAR was going to be, and how Boortz had 'better watch out' now that the libs had 'competition' in his backyard, I expected more. I expected something along the lines of Stephanie Miller, not Jerry Springer. So did the press.

What is it with you libs and throwing down the 'politics' card everytime we talk about Libtalk? What is the title of the thread? 'Dems want more $$ for NPR'?

 

[Al Johnson]

Right Wing Talk A Miserable Failure

Now we have proof. Right wing talk won't work (based on the "logic" used by its fans):

Indianapolis radio listeners are turning a deaf ear to the market’s newest talk-radio offering. According to recently released Arbitron Inc. radio station ratings, the newly formatted WWFT-FM 93.9 is fighting for its life as central Indiana’s fourth news-talk frequency... (read more - Indy Biz Journal)

They are on FM (not even AM, FM! Where 80% of the radio audience is). They got a story in the newspaper. They have Hannity (#2), Savage (#3), Ingraham (#5). They had every chance to succeed. And they FAILED .... MISERABLY!

Right-wing talk radio can't compete in the marketplace, so they have to keep liberal talk off the air.

That makes sense. The term "fairness doctrine" is used as a generic term for any legislation that is intended as a new replacement for the old "Fairness Doctrine". It's used as a quick headline because the term "a piece of proposed legislation that would be somewhat similar to the old Fairness Doctrine except with a new name and some changes in the details" is too long to fit a headline.

Of course. And "fairness doctrine" is the term that would be used in any headline or news story. And "fairness doctrine" would call up those news stories in any news database search (Google, Yahoo!, Lexis-Nexis, etc). Except nobody is talking about this except right-wing politicians, bloggers and talk show hosts who want to rouse the rabble. But since they have got everybody thinking about it, and given the way some people here argue against it, maybe a new "fairness doctrine" not such a bad idea after all.

Email your members of congress today.

Write Your Representative

US Senate: Contact Information

PS: RR, Nice try at changing the subject. But I'd rather talk about radio than how authoritarians/Neo-cons/Rockefeller Republicans/Dixiecrats started calling themselves "conservatives" and forced true conservatives to call themselves "libertarians" to disassociate themselves. Read John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" some time. Heck, read a book instead of listening to right wing talk radio some time. Most books are available in spoken word form on tape if you need help making the transition. Books on tape are for talk radio listeners what Nicorette is for smokers.

Just so I'm clear, what is the standard here for "miserable failure?"

how about 'not on the air'? Roll Eyes

PPS: This Memorial Day, ABC-owned talk radio stations WLS, Chicago and Musicradio 77, WABC, New York will have "radio rewind" retro broadcasts so we can all remember the the music, personalities and sounds of these stations when they were AM Top 40 stations, and (according to Evnlee) "miserable failures" (since that format is "not on the air" any more). Last week XM Radio did a retro salute to "miserable failure" KQV and the "losers" who worked there (like "Jeff Christie"). At the top of any list of "miserable failures" would be Kwixie in Dixie (sold - flipped - gone and now remembered as the inspiration for "WKRP in Cincinnati").

 

[gr8oldies]

WLS, WABC and WQXI weren't "miserable failures" in their day, their audience went to FM eventually, and music formats in general segmented.

 

[Al Johnson]

WLS, WABC and WQXI weren't "miserable failures" in their day, their audience went to FM eventually, and music formats in general segmented.

GR8: You gotta follow the thread.

Evnlee says a format no longer on the air is a "miserable failure." His rules; not mine. It doesn't matter if a station got it's best numbers, it's only numbers, ever. Flip = "miserable failure." The implied corollary is Evnlee's Law is: Radio management's decisions are always correct.

 

[evnlee]

Re: Right Wing Talk A Miserable Failure

Now we have proof. Right wing talk won't work (based on the "logic" used by its fans):

Indianapolis radio listeners are turning a deaf ear to the market’s newest talk-radio offering. According to recently released Arbitron Inc. radio station ratings, the newly formatted WWFT-FM 93.9 is fighting for its life as central Indiana’s fourth news-talk frequency... (read more - Indy Biz Journal)

They are on FM (not even AM, FM! Where 80% of the radio audience is). They got a story in the newspaper. They have Hannity (#2), Savage (#3), Ingraham (#5). They had every chance to succeed. And they FAILED .... MISERABLY!

and I agree with you. They failed miserably, too. See how easy it is?

Now, lets extrapolate that across the board~ are a plurality of these 'right wing' talk stations following the example?

Because Err Amerika has been losing more affiliates since November 2005 then it has picked up.

The same could be said for some 'right wing radio'. Doesn't bug me. I'll still listen and so will you.

The simple fact is, you guys have trained liberals to reject the am 'talk radio' format for decades.

The message of 'libtalk' is too nuanced to achieve a cohesive, national audience worth running it.

Libtalk's rants against 'corporate malfeasance' acts as a barrier to major advertisers.

I beleive all those statements to be true.

I also believe that those reasons are why the Dems are looking at a new 'Fairness ( Ownership )Doctrine.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Al Johnson]

Re: Right Wing Talk A Miserable Failure

and I agree with you. They failed miserably, too. See how easy it is?

Now, lets extrapolate that across the board~ are a plurality of these 'right wing' talk stations following the example?

Because Err Amerika has been losing more affiliates since November 2005 then it has picked up.

The same could be said for some 'right wing radio'. Doesn't bug me. I'll still listen and so will you.

The simple fact is, you guys have trained liberals to reject the am 'talk radio' format for decades.

The message of 'libtalk' is too nuanced to achieve a cohesive, national audience worth running it.

Libtalk's rants against 'corporate malfeasance' acts as a barrier to major advertisers.

I beleive all those statements to be true.

I also believe that those reasons are why the Dems are looking at a new 'Fairness ( Ownership )Doctrine.

Prove me wrong.

Air America's affiliate count has always been suspect. But as Baroosk points out on his excellent Talking Radio blog, the lib talk format has lost 24 stations and added one for a 19% drop in potential audience since February 1, 2006. One can interpret that as "miserable failure." Or as Air America took stations it never should have accepted in the first place. Or as a result of a combination of factors such as weak signals, poor programming, insufficient promotion...

However, there are some success stories to show that when done well with good programming and a good signal, progressive talk can work (i.e., deliver an audience).

Yes, I agree, political talk radio may have passed it's peak, in quality and in audience. Radio formats rise and fall. Liberals may have gotten in the talk radio game too late.

Please say more about how liberals "trained liberals to reject the am 'talk radio' format for decades." The AM talk radio format has mostly been right-leaning hosts for decades and liberals have knocked it. I don't know that's the same as teaching liberals to reject the medium. I do think Air America made a blunder in trying to copy the style of right-wing talk radio. And yes, I think the liberal message might be more nuanced but a skilled communicator can use it effectively to create good talk radio (like Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz or - especially - Thom Hartmann).

> Libtalk's rants against 'corporate malfeasance' acts as a barrier to major advertisers.
The only example that comes to mind of a liberal host biting the hand that feeds her was Arnie Arnesen. All talk show hosts should know how far they can go in making a point. And we have seen lately what happens when hosts go too far (Imus, Opie & Anthony, JV and Elvis). But I don't hear major advertisers much on talk radio at all - left or right. A big deal was made of some advertisers instructing ABC radio not to let stations which take Air America run their spots. At least most of those same advertisers don't want their spots run on any political talk shows or in any controversial programming. To my ear, it seems liberal and conservative talk have a lot of the same advertisers and none are blue chip accounts.

I don't think elimination of the fairness doctrine and ownership caps have been good for radio. For the public, radio sucks and fewer and fewer are listening. For advertisers, fewer are buying and those still buying aren't willing to pay what they used to. For workers, radio has fewer jobs thanks to consolidation, automation and voice tracking (also a big factor in radio sucks). And as a former Clear Channel shareholder, it has not been good for investors either. The stock is a dog. Radio has dragged down the stocks of the other big players, as well.

I'm not sure why Kucinich brought up this fairness doctrine idea. They are more compelling reasons for changing the current rules than getting more libtalkers on the air. But the current rules haven't worked and they should be scrapped.

 

[Radio_Realist]

In the radio business, as in all businesses, almost nothing ever totally succeeds or totally fails. Even the worst businesses manage to achieve some measure of success, though if the success isn't high enough, then the venture fails.

When one discusses the "failure" of a given radio format, evenlee's definition of "not on the air" is valid. Formats can fail due to old age after a long history of success. Formats can fail after a brief, introductory time. Someone mentioned Top 40 earlier. It was a resounding success in its day. It only failed after a relatively long and successful run. But even though it had a long and successful run, it did eventually fail. And no amount of nostalgic reminisces about the good old days will alter the fact that it did ultimately fail.

As for the criteria for extrapolating from the success or failure of any given format in some test markets, there are entire text books covering that subject. It is not something that can be explained in any level of detail in an internet discussion forum post. Those of you who question why radio station programmers decide against switching one of their stations to liberal talk based on liberal talk's track record need to get hold of some of those text books and read them. And don't expect anyone to tell you the titles. If you don't find them on your own, if someone tells you the titles to read, the probability is high that some in here would simply accuse the person recommending the title of only recommending titles that support his own opinions. If you find the books yourself, then there's a better chance you'll accept or reject the information in the books on its own merits, with your judgement unclouded by your opinions of the person doing the suggesting.

If one program director at one station does something, there's always a chance that he simply made a mistake. But when the majority (even if not all) program directors across the country do the same thing, the odds favor that decision being a sound one.

As for why some formats succeed in some markets, and fail in others, I challenge anyone to name anything that is uniformly successful all across the country. Why do some cities have an oldies station dominating the ratings, and in other cities country or urban music dominates? Why do some cities have better sales for Pepsi and other cities have better sales for Coke? Why do cooks in Tennessee make BBQ from pork, while cooks in Texas prefer beef brisket? All the anecdotal examples of one talk format succeeding in a handful of markets prove is that sometimes the people in a given market don't follow the same patterns as the people in the rest of the country.

They are more compelling reasons for changing the current rules than getting more libtalkers on the air. But the current rules haven't worked and they should be scrapped.

I have yet to see a compelling reason posted in here.

 

[Tom Wells]

They are more compelling reasons for changing the current rules than getting more libtalkers on the air. But the current rules haven't worked and they should be scrapped.

I have yet to see a compelling reason posted in here.

It is time to invoke the spirit of Miss Emily Litella. Such a kindly misunderstanding woman, given time to air her opinion.
The reality of Gilda Radner's characterization was to point out that the fairness doctrine brought so many good and bad public responses
as to make us better understand our neighbor.

For good or bad, the decorum and civility provided by the fairness doctrine created less issue polarization than the bully pulpit model has.

The current model has rewarded our basest emotions and the ownership, and done little to bring either polar opposite into
consideration and respect for their "opponents".

Kind of like encouraging people to fight, if you ask me.

 

[Radio_Realist]

For good or bad, the decorum and civility provided by the fairness doctrine created less issue polarization than the bully pulpit model has.

Decorum and civility are not necessarily outcomes that are so clearly beneficial that it is self-evident that steps to achieve those ends should be compulsory. And, there is no obvious cause-and-effect relationship between any sort of Fairness Doctrine and a higher level of decorum and civility. Some measure of simultaneous occurrence does not prove cause-and-effect. Nor is there any self-evident indication that polarization of public opinion was caused by the current status quo in the media, rather than the media is simply reflecting a bona-fide change in public attitudes. Post hoc does not mean propter hoc.

I'm sorry, but if the outcome of something is not clearly good or bad, then though that reason may have been articulately expressed, or even expressed with decorum or civility, that does not make it a compelling argument.

 

[Al Johnson]

For good or bad, the decorum and civility provided by the fairness doctrine created less issue polarization than the bully pulpit model has.

Decorum and civility are not necessarily outcomes that are so clearly beneficial that it is self-evident that steps to achieve those ends should be compulsory. And, there is no obvious cause-and-effect relationship between any sort of Fairness Doctrine and a higher level of decorum and civility. Some measure of simultaneous occurrence does not prove cause-and-effect. Nor is there any self-evident indication that polarization of public opinion was caused by the current status quo in the media, rather than the media is simply reflecting a bona-fide change in public attitudes. Post hoc does not mean propter hoc.

I'm sorry, but if the outcome of something is not clearly good or bad, then though that reason may have been articulately expressed, or even expressed with decorum or civility, that does not make it a compelling argument.

I agree. To attribute good manners in talk radio to the fairness doctrine is a stretch. Besides, the trend to rudeness started and was well-established under the fairness doctrine. Rudeness on the radio more likely comes from radio stations (and radio advertisers) targeting down market, lower social class, and less well-educated consumers. There is a general decline in social politeness in our society. Whether radio caused it or reflects it is a chicken and egg argument.

 

[TheFonz]

The truth is that the old rules are gone, and there are new rules being proposed. And the new rules will be different from the old rules. So, however things might have been under the old rules, they will be different under any new rules.

Hey, this "fairness" thing could work for me. As a former Oldies radio listener, I look forward to hearing Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis being played on [terrestrial] radio again.

 

[kaufcom]

All this talk about the return of Fairness Doctrine is just a red herring floated by conservatives who fear the loss of their 13 to 1 hour advantage on political talk radio.

It ain't gonna happen.

However, when the Dems win the Presidency next year and expand their control in Congress there will be a new FCC and the following moves will be made

• Ownership and cross-ownership rules will be tightened
• Minority ownership rules will be strengthened
• Equal time provisions will be tightened
• Decency rules will be more strictly enforced

Owners like Clear Channel will freak out and meet behind close doors with key law-makers. Suddenly, there will be more lib talk on the radio. CC managers will report that new research suggests that the format is growing in popularity.

The FCC will moderate their moves to re-regulate the industry.