Dems push fairness doctrine

[raccoonradio]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1833935/posts

In other news:

--The Fairness Doctrine will apply to TV, too. Ann Coulter will join The View, Bill O'Reilly will host NBC
Nightly News, and there will be 3 more conservative news channels.

--The government will also force vegetarians to eat meat and atheists to attend church.

 

[hootmon]

Careful what you wish for folks...fair is in the eye of the beholder. Raccoon is correct, all shows will need a counterweight. Are you ready for Michael Savage to rebut pompous Olbermann on the same show? Ready for Limbaugh to swing back at Wolf Blitzer or Navarette right after they make a "common knowledge" statement?

 

[Al Johnson]

Bull!

But keep repeating it and some people will believe it.

Truth is under the old rules you still had opinionated hosts (Rush, Bob Grant, Wally George, Joe Pyne, Morton Downey ... a lot more). However, they let people express viewpoints different from their own (before tearing them apart). They also did not stick to the party line. Conservative hosts often complained about Republican office-holders not being conservative enough. They were like fighters who came to town and offered to take on all comers. Now, post fairness doctrine, we have extended rants from hosts who "carry water" for Bush with an occasional "ditto" from an amen chorus of true believers.

The old way was much better radio.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Truth is under the old rules

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.

The old way was much better radio.

Only to people who think vanilla is not only the best flavor, it's the only flavor.

 

[robbbc]

Well I went to the free republic website and read what was quoted from an "anonymous source" (good enough for the NYT is good enough for the American Spectator; as far as I know the whole thing is made up). The source said nothing about the fairness doctrine but said something about looking into the political activities of advisors to conservative shows. Perhaps looking into the funneling of political funds into the coffers of these guys? That has nothing to do with the fairness doctrine, maybe campaign finance law- I'll have to talk to Senator McCain for clarification. A lot of smoke but no fire as far as I can tell. When you can come back with something a little more substantial I'll bite.

 

[hootmon]

I remember the old fairness doctrine going to absurd lengths if someone made enough of a stink. Some TV stations were afraid to show "Bedtime for Bonzo" for fear they would have to donate two hours airtime to whomever was running against Reagan at that time.

 

[raccoonradio]

Yes and on election night Ch 56 in Boston, now allowed to run Reagan movies, had a feast called
"Ron Till Dawn"

Laura Ingraham was pointing out to listeners that we don't want the govt controlling free speech...better the
free market. If people want liberal talk they'll listen to it but no need to have the govt stepping in
to force stations to run something they may not necessarily want to carry. That's interfering with
freedom of speech.

 

[RobertAnthony]

I remember the old fairness doctrine going to absurd lengths if someone made enough of a stink. Some TV stations were afraid to show "Bedtime for Bonzo" for fear they would have to donate two hours airtime to whomever was running against Reagan at that time.

I guess that shows the ineptitude of the doctrine then and now should the Soros-controlled Congress ever decide to bring it up! The left's mission--SILENCE TALK RADIO!

 

[robbbc]

Did anyone read the actual link here other than me? It looks like folks read and then made some strange conclusions. Just like Mr. Dean's comment the other week. Ownership caps and local control is not the fairness doctrine. If you want to discuss funneling political donations into talk radio, go for it- that is what this appears to be about- not the fairness doctrine.

 

[longpets]

Here's a link to Newsweek's Howard Fineman on the issue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18681897/site/newsweek/

 

[evnlee]

Did anyone read the actual link here other than me? It looks like folks read and then made some strange conclusions. Just like Mr. Dean's comment the other week. Ownership caps and local control is not the fairness doctrine. If you want to discuss funneling political donations into talk radio, go for it- that is what this appears to be about- not the fairness doctrine.

One is to prod local broadcast television and radio stations to renew their atrophied commitment to producing and airing their own public-affairs programming—shows that Democrats think would at least give them a chance to be heard. Some Democrats want to require stations to give free time for campaign debates, and even free campaign advertising as part of the stations’ “public-service” licensing requirement.

The Democrats’ more ambitious (and longer-range) goal is to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine.”

A misuse of public airwaves?

The Democrats are moving carefully in public, but in private they fret at their lack of clout—and at what they see as a misuse of the public airwaves. Limbaugh’s rebuttal is simple: that Democrats and liberals just can’t make the sale in the marketplace.

As for the new efforts to review broadcast rules, “I don’t think it’s ever going to succeed,” Limbaugh told his listeners this week. But that didn’t keep him from sounding an alarm. The Democrats are pursuing a “pure Stalinist tactic,” he declared, “to silence or shut people like me up.”

There’s little chance of that.

 

[SaltyDog]

The Fairness doctrine

I doubt we will return to anything even remotely resembling the old Fairness Doctrine but if such a bill begins to wind its way through the political pipleline, I suggest we call it The Satellite Radio Resuscitation Act. The merger appears to have little chance and they could use the help. The Fairness Doctrine would drive XM and Sirius subscriptions substantially. I have little use for either service myself and don't subscribe but re-regulation of political speech by the FCC would be enough motivation for me.

 

[Radio_Realist]

One of the most accurate and important points raised in the earlier discussions of this issue (there were several) is the fact that any type of rules or regulations similar to the old Fairness Doctrine would have the same negative effect on political speech that the old one had. And that was considerable. While it is true that a handful of bold broadcasters went ahead and aired political talk during the days of the old Fairness Doctrine, that handful of bold broadcasters were atypical. At best they serve as false evidence that the old Fairness Doctrine didn't squelch political speech. Those who favor a return to the days of yesteryear can always point to the tiny handful of political talk shows on the air during the Fairness Doctrine days, and pretend that they were not just isolated examples of atypical programming.

The truth is that the threat of action under the Fairness Doctrine was sufficient to keep all but the most bold broadcasters from putting anything on their stations that might lead to even a remote possibility of any sort of license challenge. All it would take is the passage of some sort of new incarnation of the Fairness Doctrine, regardless of whether or not it is called by that name, and once again, only a handful of bold broadcasters would risk anything by broadcasting any political content.

And, those who would benefit most from banishing all political opinion content from terrestrial radio would continue to point to the tiny handful of talk shows that survive as some sort of "proof" that no harm was done by their new law.

 

[kaufcom]

While it is true that a handful of bold broadcasters went ahead and aired political talk during the days of the old Fairness Doctrine, that handful of bold broadcasters were atypical...Those who favor a return to the days of yesteryear can always point to the tiny handful of political talk shows on the air during the Fairness Doctrine days, and pretend that they were not just isolated examples of atypical programming.

The reason why there was not much talk programming on AM in the 70's and 80's was not because of the Fairness Doctrine. Back then the AM band was populated by music formats that were quite successful. There was no need or demand to program talk shows targeting 60+ men. Top 40 and rock stations were doing quite well. The Fairness Doctrine was never used against radio. It was only used to encourage TV stations that editorialized to give equal time. (remember Emily Latella? on Saturday Night Live?) Ironically, although the Fairness Doctrine went away, vitually all TV stations stopped doing editorials.

All it would take is the passage of some sort of new incarnation of the Fairness Doctrine, regardless of whether or not it is called by that name, and once again, only a handful of bold broadcasters would risk anything by broadcasting any political content.

Radio programmers will keep programming talk radio on AM because there is nothing else that works on that band. Newtalk, sports, all news, Spanish, and oldies. That's all that you hear on AM. Actually, a new Fairness Doctrine would be a good thing because it might compell stations owners to offer more liberal talk.

 

[evnlee]

Actually, a new Fairness Doctrine would be a good thing because it might compell stations owners to offer more liberal talk.

I guess that's as much of an admission that what the market will not buy( liberal talk ),then it must be forced by government caveat.

Libtalk is out there, but very few want to hear it.

is't that pretty sorry?

 

[Radio_Realist]

The reason why there was not much talk programming on AM in the 70's and 80's was not because of the Fairness Doctrine.

Who said anything about AM? There wasn't much political talk programming on the radio prior to the suspension of the Fairness Doctrine. It's not just an issue of Rush Limbaugh style shows. There was a dearth of all political content. There were talk shows of various styles, but few of them were devoted to political content. There were sports talk shows. There were lifestyle and entertainment talk shows.

And, that was also back when station managers didn't think they had to program the exact same thing 24/7. That's back when a station might run DJ's playing records in the daytime, sports talk for PM drive, and some other kind of talk format in the evenings.

 

[kaufcom]

RR said

Who said anything about AM?

96% of talk radio is on AM so isn't this what we're talking about?

RR said

There wasn't much political talk programming on the radio prior to the suspension of the Fairness Doctrine. It's not just an issue of Rush Limbaugh style shows. There was a dearth of all political content. There were talk shows of various styles, but few of them were devoted to political content. There were sports talk shows. There were lifestyle and entertainment talk shows.

Wrong! The vast majority of programming in AM in the Fairness Doctrine Days was music programming -- Top 40, rock, country etc. Talk was a small percentage of the formats.

 

[evnlee]

There wasn't much political talk programming on the radio prior to the suspension of the Fairness Doctrine. It's not just an issue of Rush Limbaugh style shows. There was a dearth of all political content. There were talk shows of various styles, but few of them were devoted to political content. There were sports talk shows. There were lifestyle and entertainment talk shows.

Wrong! The vast majority of programming in AM in the Fairness Doctrine Days was music programming -- Top 40, rock, country etc. Talk was a small percentage of the formats.
[/quote]

it was small because station owners and managers did not want the hassle of dealing with the FD, so they avoided 'political talk' altogether. You know this, this has already been proven to you in other threads.. Even Dan Rather spoke harshly about the old FD.


Does it embarass you that you need the Govt to 'compell' stations to put on a format no one wants to listen to in great measure? Is that not the epitome of 'lame'?

 

[smedge2006]

There was talk radio in the 70s and 80s. There wasn't a lot of it in most markets because AM was still successful playing music, and because it was expensive to do talk in the days before satellite and syndication. But in the big cities where it was practical, there were many successful talk stations (KGO and KABC among them). Most of the successful hosts were liberal but there were many conservatives. The Fairness Doctrine did not stunt the careers of conservative hosts Ray Briem or Bob Grant. Most talk radio stations took on the ideological colors of the cities in which they were located. WNWS in Miami was liberal, WPLP in St. Petersburg FL was conservative. Other cities might have a mix of both.

A little secret... most station managers avoid political talk today. But there's no Fairness Doctrine -- so why? Because most radio stations are still MUSIC stations not targeting adherents to a political ideology as an audience!

it was small because station owners and managers did not want the hassle of dealing with the FD, so they avoided 'political talk' altogether. You know this, this has already been proven to you in other threads.. Even Dan Rather spoke harshly about the old FD.

How has this been "proven" to anyone? By conservatives posting agreement with each other and outnumbering other posters? By the way, conservative Reed Irvine spoke in FAVOR of the Fairness Doctrine. What does that prove?

I would say that a better version of the Fairness Doctrine would encourage fairness by clusters, not by stations, to reflect modern ownership and business models -- if you put conservative talk on one station, put liberal talk on another, and so on. Pass it or not. But it won't mean the end of talk radio or anything like it if it passes. Talk radio was born in 1960 and survived 20-plus years under FD, and anyone who says it was all gardening shows and ask the experts simply wasn't alive and is repeating self-serving oversimplifications of the way talk radio worked in the 70s/80s, or is basing their comments on a woefully small sample of stations/cities at the time.

 

[kaufcom]

envlee said

it was small because station owners and managers did not want the hassle of dealing with the FD, so they avoided 'political talk' altogether. You know this, this has already been proven to you in other threads.. Even Dan Rather spoke harshly about the old FD.

In the Fairness Doctrine Days, radio operators hadn't discovered the potential of political talk radio. Just like the TV business hadn't discovered American Idol, Survivor, and How to be a Millionaire. It had nothing to do with Fairness Doctrine. And don't keep bringing up that old Dan Rather quote. (Wasn't that in the 60's.) You would need to provide a lot more evidence than that to convince anyone that Fairness Doctrine had anything to do with why political talk did not catch on 20 years ago. How about this. Come up with one -- just one -- FCC ruling where the FD was used to curtail politcal talk radio.