Dems push fairness doctrine

[evnlee]

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.

there are so many thing wrong about that post I dont know where to begin.

I got news for you~ TV had 'discovered' all those shows years ago, only they were called Star Search, Feather Your Nest, etc.... You are truly clueless.

As for the 'proof' you require: didn't the Dan Rather quote come about because you wanted 'proof' that the FD was damaging to broadcasting? That even if it wasn't implemented ( Fcc ruling ) the mere 'threat' of it was enough to kill opinion driven talk radio? Did I not submit that to you before? Along with the proof of how both the Dems and the GOP used the FD to pound TV stations? And now you want me to 'prove' yet again an FCC ruling? Why? When you ask for documented proof and I give it to you, you ignore it. It's got to burn you guys that the 'proof' you cried so much about last time, came from your own side!?! Dan Rather? C'mon, the irony is hilarious.

Baroosk~ be a man and answer a simle question. If you require the Govt to 'compell' station owners into putting on libtalk as a 'good thing', is that not a tacit admission of failure as far as progressive talk is concerned?

Awaiting your response.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Come up with one -- just one -- FCC ruling where the FD was used to curtail politcal talk radio.

Ths issue isn't whether or not the FCC actually swung that big stick against any broadcasters. The issue was whether or not the FCC threatened to swing the big stick. The fact that the threat of the big stick was sufficient that the stick didn't need to actually be used doesn't prove that the stick didn't exist.

I could mention a face-to-face conversation with the Program Director of a radio station that I participated in back in the 1970's, but since I didn't tape the conversation so that I could put it on the internet 30 years later to provide a link, I won't bother mentioning it.

 

[kaufcom]

I said
In the Fairness Doctrine Days, radio operators hadn't discovered the potential of political talk radio...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.

didn't the Dan Rather quote come about because you wanted 'proof' that the FD was damaging to broadcasting? That even if it wasn't implemented ( Fcc ruling ) the mere 'threat' of it was enough to kill opinion driven talk radio? Did I not submit that to you before? Along with the proof of how both the Dems and the GOP used the FD to pound TV stations? And now you want me to 'prove' yet again an FCC ruling? Why? When you ask for documented proof and I give it to you, you ignore it. It's got to burn you guys that the 'proof' you cried so much about last time, came from your own side!?! Dan Rather? C'mon, the irony is hilarious.

So in other words, all you can up with in the 40 years that the FD was in effect was one quote by a fired CBS anchor. You can't even find one case where the FCC took action against a radio station (even though there were many cases where they went after TV stations.) The best you can come up with is that radio owners were so fearful of the FCC that they were afraid to do anything. The fact is that there was no need or demand for political talk radio in the 70's and 80's. They were doing quite well with music formats. It wasn't until virtually all music formats moved over to FM that and Rush Limbaugh utilized new satellite technology to syndicate his show that political talk start taking off.

evnlee said

Baroosk~ be a man and answer a simle question. If you require the Govt to 'compell' station owners into putting on libtalk as a 'good thing', is that not a tacit admission of failure as far as progressive talk is concerned?

Frankly, if radio station owners are as fearful as you suggest and as it seems to be now with the firings and suspensions of Imus, JV and Elvis, and O & A, all its going to take is some jaw-boning by Congress to level the playing field. They won't even need to a new FD.

 

[Radio_Realist]

So in other words, all you can up with in the 40 years that the FD was in effect was one quote by a fired CBS anchor.

If you were to talk to 100 radio station managers back in the 1960's, 70's or early 80's, and ask each of they why they made the decisions that they made, including the decision to not include political content in their programming, you would get 100 different answers. But, you would find that a vary large number of people who ran radio stations in the 1960's, 70's and 80's (who, incidentally, are not the same people running stations today as a new generation of people has taken over things), placed worries about the potential for trouble with the FCC as a main reason to not even consider any programming with political content. The threat of FCC action was sufficient to keep all but a handful of broadcasters from even attempting any sort of political content broadcasting.

In the early 80's, when I approached a station owner who carried almost 80% brokered time programming about putting a political talk show on the air, his answer was "With preachers asking for donations, I don't have to worry about the FCC. With someone playing polkas or other ethnic programming, I don't have to worry about the FCC. If I sell you airtime for a political show, then I have to worry about the FCC. I don't want to worry about the FCC. So, I'm not selling you any time."

The thing is, there is no way on earth to go back and interview the people who ran radio stations back then. Considering that most of them were experienced broadcasters 30 or 40 years ago, and they are 30 or 40 years older now, many of them are dead. There aren't archives of memoirs of radio station owners and managers of the 60's, 70's and 80's in which they indicate all of the various reasons why they did or didn't carry certain types of programming.

The best you can come up with is that radio owners were so fearful of the FCC that they were afraid to do anything.

No, the best we can come up with is something far more reasonable and plausible that the hogwash you claim we said. We never said that they were so fearful of the FCC that they were afraid to do anything. Never. Not once. We never, ever said that.

The best we can come up with is that most (not all, most) of the radio station operators were fearful enough of the FCC that they would choose almost anything that was less risky than political content programming. You claim we say they were afraid to to anything. That is a lie. We did not say that. We said that most of them would do everything that was less risky than political content programming.

They were doing quite well with music formats.

Actually, as I said earlier, in the days before clusters, when individual entities only owned one or two stations, a station that played music 24/7 was quite rare. Most AM stations that played music also had their Sunday morning public service ghetto. Many AM stations that played music in the daytime had lengthy evening newscasts or talk shows, often sports talk. And there were more than a few local talk shows, though they tended to be based on lightweight chat rather than political talk.

And don't give Limbaugh more credit than he deserves. He was the first political talk host to capitalize on satellite technology as a means of delivering a nationally syndicated show. But there were plenty of local talk hosts on the air before Limbaugh made syndication history. Never forget that Limbaugh is not a news talk pioneer, he is a syndication via satellite pioneer.

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.

And who shall be the czar of formats with the authority to decide how liberal a liberal has to be in order to counterbalance any given conservative? Who shall have the authority to determine if Franken was liberal enough to counter Limbaugh, or if Limbaugh was so far to the right that it would take one and a half liberals to balance him? If Limbaugh is the 500 pound gorilla of conservative talk, does it take five 100 pound liberal chimpanzees to counter him?

Who would you want to have that kind of dictatorial power over what is and isn't allowed on the radio?

 

[evnlee]

The fact is that there was no need or demand for political talk radio in the 70's and 80's.

Frankly, if radio station owners are as fearful as you suggest and as it seems to be now with the firings and suspensions of Imus, JV and Elvis, and O & A, all its going to take is some jaw-boning by Congress to level the playing field. They won't even need to a new FD.

I guess another 'fact' is that there is no need or demand for liberal talk, right?

And, of the three you mentioned, none were N/T Hosts, they were shock jocks, ( unless you really want to count Imus) .

You must be a little embarrased. You said it would be a 'good thing' for the Govt to 'compell' stations to giving libtalk a chance. Is that not an admission that libtalk, on a national level, cannot compete? That they need the Jawboning Congress to get it on the air?

I don't know about you, but that's pretty sorry.

 

[kaufcom]

evnlee said

You said it would be a 'good thing' for the Govt to 'compell' stations to giving libtalk a chance. Is that not an admission that libtalk, on a national level, cannot compete? That they need the Jawboning Congress to get it on the air?

Lib talk is doing just fine. 12+ Ratings on the 64 stations offering full time lib talk are up 11% over the past year. (even higher in the money demos) Conservative talk is down 4%

Ratings on three stations that CC flipped to other formats in December -- WSAI in Cin., WTPG in Columbus, and WXKS in Boston are down 70% since they dropped lib talk.

For a variety of reasons many station owners remain hostile to lib talk and want to maintain the 13 to 1 advantage for right wing talk. This will change in coming months -- either by market forces or by govt. action.

 

[Radio_Realist]

full time lib talk are up 11% over the past year

When you start out at next to nothing, big percentage gains are a lot easier.

But, if you are correct, and liberal talk does OK on it's own, then that kills your argument in favor of government mandated liberal talk radio, doesn't it?

 

[Al Johnson]

I thought I should post before this thread gets moved to Take It Outside.

Except for Baroosk, it seems like few people here really know what they are talking about, but talk radio is based on not letting facts get in the way of a good argument.

The way some people are so obsessed with "Dems push fairness doctrine" makes me think maybe "Dennis the Menace" is on to something.

Those of you who hate the fairness doctrine have convinced me: Maybe we should bring it back. In fact, let's bring back all the old rules: Ownership limits. News and public service. Radio was a lot better then. Radio had more jobs then. Radio was making money then. People were listening more then. Coincidence? I think not.

Not that any of this matters much. Political talk won't last that much longer any way. Every day, it seems, another talk show host gets fired, suspended or reprimanded. And we keep seeing some story about advertisers pulling out. Already major advertisers won't touch political talk radio (left or right). Talk radio subsists on relatively small number of bottom feeder advertisers, just one step up from the people running infomercials. Verbal advantage for ignorant. eHarmony for the desperate. Fly-by-nite insurance for the gullible. And all sorts of drugs for the infirmities and conditions people out of the money demos used to accept as part of getting old. You can tell more about the state of political talk by listening to the spots than by listening to the hosts.

But if some of you are so opposed to the fairness doctrine, by all means, let's bring it back.

PS: Why is it so many of you who are claiming your rights to free speech will be taken away by the fairness doctrine are so quick to want somebody to lose his job just because he says something you don't like? How come with Republican political talk so dominant in the medium, you are so afraid of a few small liberal talk stations? How come your "free speech" depends on the absence of free speech for those who disagree with you?

This board used to have a lot of postings about libtalk. It seems that all dried up when a consultant to contalk stations started sponsoring this board. What's that about?

 

[evnlee]

For a variety of reasons many station owners remain hostile to lib talk and want to maintain the 13 to 1 advantage for right wing talk. This will change in coming months -- either by market forces or by govt. action.

I see. Could it be that owners are not hostile to libtalk, but more interested in making money?

What Kucinich is recommending is not letting the 'free market forces '( competetion ) make the change, he want's a govt caveat to do it. He seems to think that limiting the ownership caps will inspire mom and pops to suddenly 'give libtalk a chance' :

regardless of some sporadic 'success' stories, the verdict on libtalk making it to a level of success the likes of Limbaugh,Hannity, Beck enjoy is already in. Yeah we all know Randi Rhodes beat Rush in a couple books in West Palm Beach years ago, but now she's on a network that is a laughingstock, having already gone intellectually and fiscally bankrupt. Rush gets paid millions and millions and Air America is reduced to selling totebags like PBS. The public already has had the opportunity to sample Air America, and in many cases, turned the dial.

When conservative hosts say 7 years ago : 'libtalk will try to compete, and fail. and after that, they will reinstitute the FD' , and it happens just like that~ then you know you've been proven wrong.

 

[Radio_Realist]

In fact, let's bring back all the old rules: Ownership limits. News and public service. Radio was a lot better then. Radio had more jobs then. Radio was making money then. People were listening more then. Coincidence? I think not.

I agree. Let's go all the way back. Outlaw television. Bring back scripted comedies and dramas. We can all sit around the Atwater-Kent listening to The Bickersons.

 

[kaufcom]

Al Johnson said

The way some people are so obsessed with "Dems push fairness doctrine" makes me think maybe "Dennis the Menace" is on to something. Those of you who hate the fairness doctrine have convinced me: Maybe we should bring it back. In fact, let's bring back all the old rules: Ownership limits. News and public service. Radio was a lot better then. Radio had more jobs then. Radio was making money then. People were listening more then. Coincidence? I think not.
Not that any of this matters much. Political talk won't last that much longer any way. Every day, it seems, another talk show host gets fired, suspended or reprimanded. And we keep seeing some story about advertisers pulling out. Already major advertisers won't touch political talk radio (left or right). But if some of you are so opposed to the fairness doctrine, by all means, let's bring it back.

Good point. With all of radio (including talk radio) in decline maybe we need some govt regulation to shake things up. Media regulation has always been waxing and waning. Everyone on the right seems to be obsessed with the Fairness Doctrine. They are desparately afraid of losing their virtual monopoly on talk radio.They even go so far as to make up quotes http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11427According from unnamed Congressional aids to feed the hysteria. Personally, I don't think there will be a new FD. However, there will probably be more scrutiny of broadcast ownership, decency issues, and localism. When the Dems take over the presidency next year and a new FCC is put in place expect some changes. Anticipating this, expect station owners to act pre-emptively. XM pulled the plug on O & A because they thought their merger with Sirius was at risk, not because they were outraged by the shockmeisters comments.

 

[Radio_Realist]

With all of radio (including talk radio) in decline maybe we need some govt regulation to shake things up.

Good idea. With all of radio in decline, more government regulation and intrusion will accelerate the decline and eliminate the entire medium much more quickly. Then those of you who work in radio can get real jobs.

 

[smedge2006]

Good idea. With all of radio in decline, more government regulation and intrusion will accelerate the decline and eliminate the entire medium much more quickly. Then those of you who work in radio can get real jobs.

There seems to be a direct relationship between regulation and the number of radio jobs, expressed in terms of jobs per station. The more regulation, the more jobs. Post-1996, the bottom has fallen out of radio employment in per-station and absolute terms. So the effect would likely be the opposite. Radio went into decline because it was fully deregulated and allowed to operate completely as a business, though protected by oligopoly licensing, rather than as a public trust. If you want deregulation, go all the way and let anybody throw up a transmitter at any time. Anything else just protects certain interests over others.

It was amusing to me, in a schadenfreude sort of way, to watch conservatives who worked in radio in the 1990s cope with the cognitive dissonance in their minds when the system they defended on the airwaves turned around and bit them in the butt when they lost their jobs to deregulation and consolidation...

There also seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of economic freedom enjoyed by the medium and the amount of creative energy. The more "no go" zones are imposed by government or sponsors, the more creative talents have to be to get their point across.

 

[SaltyDog]

In fact, let's bring back all the old rules: Ownership limits. News and public service. Radio was a lot better then. Radio had more jobs then. Radio was making money then. People were listening more then. Coincidence? I think not.

I agree. Let's go all the way back. Outlaw television. Bring back scripted comedies and dramas. We can all sit around the Atwater-Kent listening to The Bickersons.

As you apparently recognize, radio is heavily-populated with those who just think if Congress would overturn the so-called deregulation of the 90's, we could just go back to the way things were and life would be good.

 

[Al Johnson]

I wonder what those on the right would be saying if liberal shows dominated the schedules of dominant stations?

Radio like most any other business is about location, location, location. The dominant AM stations today are the ones that have always been dominant; the ones with strong signals and good dial positions. Right wing talk did not make them dominant. Today's marginal AM stations, including those which carry libtalk, have always been marginal. An updated fairness doctrine would offer an incentive for owners to offer a right-left talk duopoly. Sometimes the idiots who run radio have to be encouraged to act in their own best interests (radio owners did not want to do anything with FM until the FCC made them).

It's interesting how the same people who talk about the "marketplace" and "freedom" also endorse the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind.

Don Ameche is no longer around to play "Mr. Bickerson" but "Radio Realist" would be perfect for the role.

 

[KevinFodor]

I constantly hear the "signal" argument about the ratings issues of Libtalk, and I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

I worked for one of those "bad sticks" back in the 90's. Limbaugh pulled a 4-5 share on it. Don Imus pulled about a 4. That same stick aired a combination of Air America and other liberal-leaning shows. They didn't get a 2.

But, I'm not going to argue politics here, because I don't think politics is the problem. The problem is:
are you being entertaining? You can argue the politics of Rush all you'd like, you can argue Don Imus's "insensitivity" 'til the cows come home. But, to the people who listen to them, they are entertaining.

If Liberal Talk can figure out how to be entertaining (and I think there are liberal hosts with the potential do this), I believe it can develop.

OK, so the format is on less than desirable freqencies. Develop some shows that can pull what Rush and Imus did on the "bad sticks", and it won't be long till bigger stations come knocking.

It's all about "content".

 

[smedge2006]

Sometimes the idiots who run radio have to be encouraged to act in their own best interests (radio owners did not want to do anything with FM until the FCC made them).

So true.

Radio like most any other business is about location, location, location. The dominant AM stations today are the ones that have always been dominant; the ones with strong signals and good dial positions. Right wing talk did not make them dominant.

Bullseye. Most of the 50 kW clears (WABC, KFI, WJR, WLS, etc.) are in the second-generation of talk radio stations that came along in the mid-80's after years of doing Top 40 or full-service formats. They came in after the first generation of pioneer talk stations like KABC and WMCA had grown the format and usurped their positions because of superior signals. They got Limbaugh because Limbaugh's original syndicator, Edward F. McLaughlin, was a former ABC Radio bigwig and knew these stations and their bosses like the back of his hand. There is no way in this day and age that a 5 KW directional on six towers at 1480 or something is going to beat one of these Class A's, unless the A's and their conservatalk bases suddenly collapse. Not impossible, but that kind of opportunity can't be expected more often than once a generation. If it does, the more likely outcome is for the A to try and reposition with libtalk or something else that's not identifiably conservative. In that case, the libtalkers will simply move to the bigger signal.

 

[SaltyDog]

The dominant AM stations today are the ones that have always been dominant; the ones with strong signals and good dial positions. Right wing talk did not make them dominant.

Few conservative talk stations, even those with good signals, are "dominant" even now. But talk radio did in fact give ratings and revenues to AM stations that were previously given up for dead. The thing is, there was no master plan to launch conservative talk radio as there is now a plan to launch liberal radio. What I rarely hear discussed is what it seems to me really drove talk radio: The sudden availability of all-barter syndicated shows via satellite because satellite costs were dropping. It wasn't all conservative at the beginning of the move toward talk. There was Rush, and Alan Colmes and Bruce Williams and others. The whole drift toward the right happened as time went on and the winners and losers started to shake out.

 

[Al Johnson]

Few conservative talk stations, even those with good signals, are "dominant" even now. But talk radio did in fact give ratings and revenues to AM stations that were previously given up for dead. The thing is, there was no master plan to launch conservative talk radio as there is now a plan to launch liberal radio. What I rarely hear discussed is what it seems to me really drove talk radio: The sudden availability of all-barter syndicated shows via satellite because satellite costs were dropping. It wasn't all conservative at the beginning of the move toward talk. There was Rush, and Alan Colmes and Bruce Williams and others. The whole drift toward the right happened as time went on and the winners and losers started to shake out.

Dominant on the AM band; not dominant overall. Even so, look at the blow-torch AM talkers and some of the regionals toward the low-end of the band in the larger markets. They were the network affiliates back in the golden age of radio and then the leading top 40 or full service stations in the DJ era. Some of them are at the top of the Arbitron ratings and revenue rankings in their markets, or at least near the top. These are the dominant talkers; many markets have a second (conservative) talker. Their numbers aren't much different than some of the better progressive talkers, and like the progressive talkers, they offer straight political talk, mostly syndicated.

Top talkers have great signals and have been a force in their markets for decades. (See Arbitron's presentation on "Top Performers in News/Talk" on their website). They may build their schedule around the top political talkers like Rush and Hannity, but they also are big in local news, have strong personality-driven local talk shows, and often carry play by play broadcasts of top area professional and college teams. In a sense, they are still full service. And they retain a strong local identity and presence, often operating much as though the "old rules" were still in effect.

And Kevin, content is important but content requires a good signal. A good signal can't make up for bad content. But without a good signal, good content is a tree in an empty forest.

PS: If libs really want some kind of regulatory action to encourage liberal talk radio, a better way than a new and improved fairness doctrine would be to go back to something like the old rules on commercial content. No more informercials and curtail or eliminate brokered time. If AM station owners had to do radio the old-fashioned way, actually program their stations and sell spots, many of them would likely go with progressive talk. It's not conservative talk that beats liberal talk as much as wall to wall preachers and bowel cleanse infomercials.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I wonder what those on the right would be saying if liberal shows dominated the schedules of dominant stations?

On television, liberal shows do dominate the schedules of dominant stations and/or cable networks. The news operations of the major television broadcast networks that offer nightly newscasts are extremely left-wing. And what we say about them is "at least conservative talk radio is available to balance the extreme liberal slant of television news".

Come to think of it, maybe an updated fairness doctrine would be a good thing. The right would lose talk radio, and the left would lose NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS.

An updated fairness doctrine would offer an incentive for owners to offer a right-left talk duopoly.

I'll ask you a variation of the same question I asked Baroosk (which he ignored). Who decides how much is needed to "balance" the left-right scale? Does a station have to have two moderately conservative hosts to balance one extreme liberal? What about someone who support conservative fiscal policies but who is liberal on social issues? Does he balance himself? What person should the government entrust with that kind of power and authority?

Don Ameche is no longer around to play "Mr. Bickerson" but "Radio Realist" would be perfect for the role.

I think I'd be better as the Great Gildersleeve.