Dems push fairness doctrine

[Al Johnson]

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.

News broadcasts and talk shows are apples and oranges. Biased or not, the terrestrial network evening newscasts are no longer the factor they once were. And conservatives have Fox, which last time I looked has the largest audience of the news channels and reaches more people than the broadcast dinner-hour network news. The bias of the evening newscasts is highly debatable. I personally think they favor conventional wisdom, political correctness and those in authority. Social psychologists found out a long time ago that when the news is not what people want to hear, they label it "biased." The role of the news media is to be skeptics, not cheerleaders and flag-wavers. Apparently some prefer the latter.

Political talk is programming intended to have a point of view and marketed based on its point of view. I would envision an updated "fairness doctrine" that looks at radio as a whole - not station by station. Radio for the 50 years has been programmed in station formats, not blocks of time. The idea that each station much offer something for everyone is long gone. Under the old rules, owners were allowed one AM and one FM station (simulcasting AM until the mid 60s). Now operators have multiple stations. I mentioned a left-right duopoly - not putting hosts from the opposite ends of the political spectrum on one station, or on any talk station. The two stations should offer roughly competitive coverage of the MSA market in question. Roughly competitive would include a Class A 50kw clear channel station and a Class B full-timer on a regional channel. It would not include a Class A and Class D on a local channel.

Some people here seem to confuse the old fairness doctrine with equal time rules (which are still in effect). You and others talk about the market. Recent election results suggest the country as a whole is close to evenly divided between left and right (of course, the dominant political philosophy is I-don't-care). Even the reddest and bluest market areas have something like a 60/40 split. To have markets with two or three right-wing talk stations and no progressive talk or progressive talk on a weak stick surely does not reflect the marketplace. I don't say there has to be one lib-talk for every con-talk. I'd favor a common sense approach, looking at the market as a whole. If company X has a left-right talk duopoly and company y is running right-leaning news/talk and wants to put sports on their second AM, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But the FCC should assure the marketplace has reasonable access to a broad and representative range of viewpoints in political talk programming.

Actually, in an age of multi-station ownership, I think the FCC should ask same kinds of questions in markets which have more than two stations competing in any one music format, while other viable formats are not represented. Under the old rules of one AM and one FM customers, maybe that wouldn't be appropriate but with one company allowed to own eight stations in a market, some regulation to insure broadly representative programming is appropriate. You can't have it both ways. Marketplace rules only work with open competition; reduce competition and you need to increase regulation.

But, I say again, political talk may not be around much long in its present form any way. The killer is not the fairness doctrine. The killer is activists and politicians in the post-Imus environment who have learned to shut down any talk programming (political talk as well as shock talk) they decide they don't like and they think others should not be allowed to hear:
- Opie and Anthony suspended from XM ("flied lice" bit)
- JV and Elvis taken off by CBS ((bit about rough sex with Condoleeza Rice, Laura Bush and the Queen).
- Advertisers being urged to drop Gunny Bob on KOA (comment that Muslims should wear GPS bracelets).
- Virginia legislators pushing stations to drop Neil Boortz (VA Tech students should have resisted shooter).
Other groups are getting together and sharpening their knives for Beck (anti-Muslim and won't-vote-for-a-Jew
comments) and Rush ("Barack the Magic Negro" bit).

That's just since Imus. Stuff that passed before can end careers now. If Randi Rhodes did that assassination bit today, she'd likely be unemployed tomorrow.

First they came for Imus and I was silent ....

PS: RR, You've got to be able to do the "Gildy laugh" like Hal Peary. Willard Waterman couldn't do it and the show was never the same again. Also in the cast: Holland Cooke as Fibber McGee. Baroosk as Judge Hooker.

 

[evnlee]

Some people here seem to confuse the old fairness doctrine with equal time rules (which are still in effect). You and others talk about the market. Recent election results suggest the country as a whole is close to evenly divided between left and right (of course, the dominant political philosophy is I-don't-care). Even the reddest and bluest market areas have something like a 60/40 split. To have markets with two or three right-wing talk stations and no progressive talk or progressive talk on a weak stick surely does not reflect the marketplace. I don't say there has to be one lib-talk for every con-talk. I'd favor a common sense approach, looking at the market as a whole. If company X has a left-right talk duopoly and company y is running right-leaning news/talk and wants to put sports on their second AM, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But the FCC should assure the marketplace has reasonable access to a broad and representative range of viewpoints in political talk programming.


PS: RR, You've got to be able to do the "Gildy laugh" like Hal Peary. Willard Waterman couldn't do it and the show was never the same again. Also in the cast: Holland Cooke as Fibber McGee. Baroosk as Judge Hooker.

I disagree. The marketplace is determining what get's on the air, in most cases.

Libtalk is never going to be able to compete with Conservative Talk, no matter what market~ if the liberals wont listen to it. Time and time again, and in markets where a large liberal base is present, lib talk has failed. A few select markets can support it, but not nationally, across the board. I take the opinion that my interaction with my liberal friends is indicative of the national feeling that liberals dont enjoy listening to libtalk. Especially when there usually is NPR in the market, and they have been listening to that for decades now.

If they wanted to listen to it,it would be on the air in a more prevelant form. By and large, aeven liberals dont like liberal talk. With exceptions ( like our buddy Baroosk ) of course.

PS.. I call dibs on 'Baby Schnooks'

 

[Al Johnson]

It all depends on how you define "marketplace." Taking politics out of the equation, does the "marketplace" determine markets with no Oldies station (or no standards or no Classical or no Alternative station) but more than two Urban stations (or two Country stations, sports stations, Hispanic stations). Radio is like a store with limited shelf space and the "gatekeepers" who own the shelves decide what gets stocked. People have to make do with what's on the shelf.

The argument made on this board about libtalk often boils down to: Libtalk will never work because it hasn't worked. A lot of people said pretty much the same thing about flying before the Wright Brothers showed up on that sand dune in North Carolina.

The reason it hasn't worked is either said to be: Listeners don't want it (despite polls in which substantial portions of the public express liberal views and elections in which substantial proportions of the electorate votes for Democratic of liberal candidates). Or: Liberal talk is not very good (much of it is not; some of it is).

No format can succeed unless it is done well, promoted and people can receive it on a clear and static-free signal. Put libtalk on a Class D AM which has never had an audience under any format, don't put up any billboards or buy any TV spots and it's lucky to get a one share.

In Madison, WI, libtalk had over a three share and the regional PD (who also does his own conservative talk show on weekends) wanted to pull the plug (he did pull the plug on other libtalkers in his region). The guy wanted to replace libtalk in Madison with syndicated sports talk, in a market which already had two other sports talk stations. Does this sound like what Adam Smith had in mind?

In general, libtalk gets better numbers in markets where public radio gets good numbers.

Rush and Hannity do very well for right-wing talk. But the rest of the pack of conservative hosts aren't really doing any better than the better libtalk hosts. If libtalk doesn't work, by the same standard most of conservative talk isn't working either. What libtalk lacks is a real star with drawing power (like Rush). Rush put right-wing talk on the map. Howard put hot talk on the map. Alan Freed put top 40 on the map. Babe Ruth put baseball on the map. Libtalk hasn't found its breakout star.

I don't like Hip Hop radio but I don't spend a lot of time predicting it will fail. I don't like Alternative but I don't argue that it can't work. What I don't understand is why some people here want libtalk to fail?

And why all this upset about a possible new version of the fairness doctrine? It seems some are more worried about libtalk getting on the air than they are about any loss of contalk. Like Al Sharpton and the just-departed Jerry Fallwell, they seem to think if they don't want it, nobody should have it.

I don't want to take Hip Hop away from those who like it. I just wish those who like it wouldn't drive around with the windows open playing it full blast on some super audio system in the middle of the night.

To audition for the role of Baby Snooks, please record yourself singing "People" and post it as an mp3.

 

[smedge2006]

To audition for the role of Baby Snooks, please record yourself singing "People" and post it as an mp3.

Doesn't Barbra Streisand have dibs on that part?

Time and time again, and in markets where a large liberal base is present, lib talk has failed. A few select markets can support it, but not nationally, across the board.

In Portland it's a runaway success. In Seattle, it's near-runaway. It's competitive (for English language) programming in Miami. Competitive in Madison and San Diego. Is there some genetic difference between liberals in these cities and Boston or the other cities where libtalk has "failed"? Or is it the signals and the promotion? Can you tell me what is different about these "select" markets, other than the signals on which the libtalkers were placed?

 

[Radio_Realist]

The reason it hasn't worked is either said to be: Listeners don't want it (despite polls in which substantial portions of the public express liberal views and elections in which substantial proportions of the electorate votes for Democratic of liberal candidates). Or: Liberal talk is not very good (much of it is not; some of it is).

You left out "People who vote liberal don't want to listen to liberal talk radio. People who vote liberal would rather listen to music." For proof of that, look at the high ratings that music format radio stations get in voting jurisdictions where liberal candidates win most elections.

I don't like Hip Hop radio but I don't spend a lot of time predicting it will fail. I don't like Alternative but I don't argue that it can't work. What I don't understand is why some people here want libtalk to fail?

Why would you presume that those of us who predict that liberal talk radio will continue to fail are stating that fact because we want liberal talk to fail. Personally, I like classical music radio, but I recognize that the few commercial supported classical music stations that were tried usually failed. I like that, but I don't argue that it can work. I face the reality that it won't work. I don't like polka radio, but I predict it will fail. And, as first generation Polish immigrants get old and die off, the number of stations playing polkas gets smaller and smaller. My prediction of the failure of polka radio has nothing to do with what I like, it has everything to do with reality as I see it.

I do not want liberal talk radio to fail. I also have no emotional investment in seeing it succeed. Looking at it purely objectively, it appears that it will continue to fail. It also appears that its advocates are looking for every possible artificial life support scheme they can think of to keep the dying patient alive. Hope springs eternal, and all that.

You say you don't understand why some people want liberal talk radio to fail when that simply isn't true. I can't understand why so many people automatically assume that any prediction that a sick patient will die is proof that the predictor wants the sick patient to die.

Is there some genetic difference between liberals in these cities and Boston or the other cities where libtalk has "failed"?

Nope, it's not genetic. It's just the way things are. Though, cultural heritage could possibly play a small part. I don't know if it does or not, but I suppose it could.

 

[evnlee]

Time and time again, and in markets where a large liberal base is present, lib talk has failed. A few select markets can support it, but not nationally, across the board.

In Portland it's a runaway success. In Seattle, it's near-runaway. It's competitive (for English language) programming in Miami. Competitive in Madison and San Diego. Is there some genetic difference between liberals in these cities and Boston or the other cities where libtalk has "failed"? Or is it the signals and the promotion? Can you tell me what is different about these "select" markets, other than the signals on which the libtalkers were placed?

Smedge~ do you realize you are making my point? A 'few select markets can support it', right?

In all those markets you quote, how many have beaten Limbaugh consistently, since 2004?

Now, in all those markets, how 'competetive' is Limbaugh's show against progressive talk?

My point exactly. Some markets can do well with Libtalk, but they cannot get it done nationally. BUt Limbaugh has long 'gotten it done' nationally, and in liberal markets, too.

Now, we can go on with the old tried and true excuse buffet: bad signal, no promotion, evil management, but that's so predictable and has already been proven wrong. When Limbaugh started, he did not get on blowtorches exclusively right away, he had to build with what was available at the time. And he not only did very well, he created an entire genre of opinion driven news talk, just as Stern did for hot talk.

It's not a lack of 'star power' that dooms libtalk to failure nationally. Part is the message : a hateful anti-corporate screed that discourages major ad placement. Part is the messenger : Franken was a great example of 'cant get it done'. The biggest part is that MOST liberals just don't like opinion driven N/T on AM, because they were indoctrinated to hate the format when the only show in town was Rush. So now they listen to music or NPR, or podcasts.

 

[Al Johnson]

RR, I'm not directing my comments at you specifically. I'm not that interested in politics. I listen to talk radio because it's about the only place left were radio is still personality-driven, like full-service radio was in the morning and top 40 radio was at night.

It seems to me that in talking about liberal talk on this board, there is a good deal of gloating when a lib talk station flips to something else. Other formats are in decline but on the Oldies board or the Standards board I don't see gloating as I do here.

And I don't see the kind of consistently negative comments on those other boards that I see directed at liberal talk here. It seems that for some people they can't do anything right and that some people even go out of their way looking for stuff they can use to bash liberal talk radio.

Rush does a good radio show, in my view, although he's passed his peak and he is no longer close to the top of his game. Imus also did a good show, although not like he did years ago. I don't think liberal talk radio has anybody in their league but I think Stephanie Miller and Thom Hartmann are good (although Hartmann may be too low-key for some tastes) and Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes are OK, with some good moments. Others I have heard (how can I put this tastefully) -- suck.

But over on the right, it's much the same picture. Hannity is OK in small doses. Beck can be funny at times (hard to take at others). Medved isn't bad (sort of the conservative Hartmann). But the others are completely unlistenable: Gallagher, O'Reilly, Liddy ....

Yes, most liberals listening to radio are listening to something else. So are most conservatives. More than nine out of ten people using radio are tuned to other formats, according to Arbitron. And maybe some liberals (and even some conservatives) do prefer the public radio style of news and information programming (even if they perceive bias). I do think that liberal talkers, especially Air America, made a mistake in trying to copy the style of conservative talk and even shock talk at times.

On balance, liberal talk is not as bad as some here say and it's not as good at could/should be. The same is true of conservative talk and most everything in radio.

Station ownership and program production and distribution is concentrated in a few large corporations (nationally and at the market level). Radio is not a free and open market. Market forces are not working well. Republicans have supported appropriate regulation in monopoly and oligopoly situations. Regulation is needed to assure a diversity of programming in any given market. This is especially true when talk programming represents not just a general political philosophy but has hosts and programs who are acknowledged "water carriers" delivering a party line.

Rush wasn't always a water carrier. His first few years in New York he was more of an independent Midwestern conservative (what was once called a Taft Republican) and critical of the original Bush administration. Some have credited Rush's influence in helping challenger Pat Buchanan defeat incumbent Bush The Elder in the 1992 New Hampshire Republican primary. After that, Rush got invited to the White House, met the RNC and administration people, spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom and started to carry water for the party. A similar relationship exists between the RNC and other hosts - and between the DNC and DLC and liberal hosts. You can make the case that talk shows are "political speech" and therefore equal time rules would apply. And I doubt the Dems in congress would ever really want to hold hearings on the real relationship between talk show hosts and party organizations. That sword cuts both ways. So instead, they propose a new fairness doctrine.

I'd rather see the FCC stop rubber stamping license renewals, and instead look at concentration of formats. The FCC should not renew the license of a station when the market has more than two stations with the same format, while other viable formats are not represented. Either that or go back to the old ownership limits: One AM and one FM per market. Seven of each total.

PS: Rush also beats O'Reilly, Boortz and Liddy. That's a better comparison because they are competing for the same listeners. Just as Hartmann and Schultz are in competition for the same listeners.

By mentioning Rush, you are setting up a straw man comparison. Nobody in talk radio beats Rush. Although, as he continues to slide, some day it will happen. If you insist on making comparisons: How does Stephanie Miller do against Beck (or Laura Ingraham or the guys who replaced Tony Snow)? How do Randi Rhodes/Ed Schultz do in afternoon drive against Hannity?

 

[Radio_Realist]

And I don't see the kind of consistently negative comments on those other boards that I see directed at liberal talk here. It seems that for some people they can't do anything right and that some people even go out of their way looking for stuff they can use to bash liberal talk radio.

That's because there is no strong movement afoot in which one of the major political parties is working towards passing legislation that would mandate the airing of any particular music format on the radio. Music formats fail or succeed on their own. If someone were attempting to pass a "musical fairness doctrine" that required all stations to provide a "fair" amount of music from genres that have particular appeal to certain minority segments of the population, you'd see a different response in the music format forums.

 

[Al Johnson]

And I don't see the kind of consistently negative comments on those other boards that I see directed at liberal talk here. It seems that for some people they can't do anything right and that some people even go out of their way looking for stuff they can use to bash liberal talk radio.

That's because there is no strong movement afoot in which one of the major political parties is working towards passing legislation that would mandate the airing of any particular music format on the radio. Music formats fail or succeed on their own. If someone were attempting to pass a "musical fairness doctrine" that required all stations to provide a "fair" amount of music from genres that have particular appeal to certain minority segments of the population, you'd see a different response in the music format forums.

And I'd agree with them. To paraphrase the traffic reports: You're not seeing what I'm saying. I do not advocate going back to the balkanized program schedules of the 50s and before. I do say that when - across all the 20, 30 or 40 stations in a market - there a three or more stations covering the same geographic area with the same format (and other formats, as a result, are not represented) that shows the "marketplace" is not working and the FCC should look at that. I do not recommend any solution involving block programming.

Pardon me for saying this sounds like another straw man argument, like saying liberal talk fails because they don't get better numbers than Rush.

 

[evnlee]

Regulation is needed to assure a diversity of programming in any given market. This is especially true when talk programming represents not just a general political philosophy but has hosts and programs who are acknowledged "water carriers" delivering a party line.

your not getting it Al. Regulation has not had any effect on NPR, which is a 'water carrier' for the other team.

The marketplace is determining the programming, not 'agenda driven corporate overlords'.

When Clearchannel gave Err Amerika a chance, they were lauded and praised delux on this board. When CC pulled some underperforming libtalker off thier signals, the very same bloggers that previously admired CC's 'openmindedness' started calling them 'fascists'.

Liberals were told for more then a decade to 'ignore' talk radio~ and they did. Now some are trying to tell them, 'okay, NOW listen to talk radio, now that it has some libtalkers on it', but the majority don't like the genre. They were indoctrinated to dislike am talk radio, due to Rush' success.

To be fair, some liberals did listen to am talk radio in the 90's, and used to say to themselves 'why can't we get a guy like Limbaugh on our side on the air?' .(They already had more then one, NPR)

That's your target demo, right there. The angry liberal listeners that used to listen to Rush, and are very pleased that some progressive hosts can eeek out an existence, also cannot wait to throw guys like Alan Colmes or Ed Schultz right up under the bus. But in some markets ( madison for example ) there's enough of them to make some $$$. But, I think it is fair to say, they will never get to the level of Limbaugh's success, because most liberals dont like political talk radio. They have spent too much time invested in marginalizing it's sway. Those that do, have NPR. The tiny amount left is not enough to support a national show, with 20 million listeners.

The fact that federal police powers are being explored, and cries for the 'new fairness doctrine' are evident proves what Rush has said since 1997 " After they try to compete and fail ( Err Amerika ), they will start talking about the return of the fiarness doctrine". Well, was he right, or was he wrong?

 

[Radio_Realist]

I do say that when - across all the 20, 30 or 40 stations in a market - there a three or more stations covering the same geographic area with the same format (and other formats, as a result, are not represented) that shows the "marketplace" is not working and the FCC should look at that.

Believe me, I clearly understood what you were saying. What I am saying is that you are dead bang wrong. If a certain genre of music is not represented with a station dedicated to that genre (aka "format"), that proves that there simply aren't enough people in that market who want to listen to that genre of music for it to be profitable for a broadcaster. If there are three stations playing one format, and none playing another format, that doesn't mean that there even is a problem, let alone that the government needs to "solve" it.

Even if one of the three stations serving the same market could make more money by switching to the unserved format, that's still not sufficient grounds for the government to intervene.

If a small group of people who want to hear a certain genre of music played for free on terrestrial radio don't get that free music on the radio, that's not something for which government action is necessary, or even appropriate. However, it is the best example for illustrating why it is also unnecessary and inappropriate for the government to attempt the same "solution" to a similarly non-existent problem regarding talk radio of any particular political slant or bias.

It's time to accept that it is now the year 2007. The arguments about scarcity of spectrum and the "public airwaves" don't hold much water in the age of new channels through HD technology and the rise of other media.

 

[Al Johnson]

RR, I understand your viewpoint. I don't trust the government much either but sometimes things get so out of kilter something has to be done. The airline industry is one. Like radio, things were a lot better before. Better for passengers and better for anyone who owned stock in an airline.

Radio is not, never has been and never will be a free marketplace. The question is: How well do the current regulations work and who benefits under the current regulations? They work terribly and nobody benefits, no not even the people who control the radio mega-corporations. Here, too, things were better before: Better for listeners. Better for advertisers. Better for anybody who owned stock. And better for anyone who wanted to work in radio.

Under the old rules the deck was stacked one way. Now it's stacked another way. The issue is not whether the game is rigged but how to rig it.

Broadcasters make dumb decisions. I am sure most people on this board can, off the tops of their heads, cite multiple examples of dumb format flips; instances when stations with good, OK, so-so or not bad numbers flipped and ratings and revenue went into the toilet.

When a market has three talk stations (plus one strong out of market talk signal) , with three of those four stations owned by one company, and that company drops liberal talk on one for conservative talk shows recycled and time-shifted from its other stations, and the recycled station has share numbers one-third what they were a year ago with libtalk, something is really screwy. One more reason for the company's shareholders to revolt.

I've read your posts for some time now. You don't strike me as a satisfied customer of radio. You know the biz is in a mess. Why perpetuate the system that made it that way and keeps it that way?

And I am not saying anybody has to stay with a format that doesn't work. I'm saying that a station should have a strong incentive to do something different than what two or more other stations are doing. If that flops, try something else. Even create something new. I'm not even saying that if somebody wants to be the third or fourth or fifth station in a format that the idea should automatically be rejected. But they should have to make a good case for it.

 

[Radio_Realist]

You don't strike me as a satisfied customer of radio. You know the biz is in a mess. Why perpetuate the system that made it that way and keeps it that way?

I am not in favor of perpetuting a system that doesn't work as well as it should (or could). But regardless of how bad a situation might be, government action to change that situation should always be the ultimate last resort, turned to only in rare instances of extreme national emergency, and then to the bare minimum degree possible, and as temporarily in nature as possible.

Our government has one of the worst track records of any entity in existence at solving social problems. Far more social problems are solved in spite of government action than because of government action. No laundry list of real or hypothetical examples of programming "problems" will change the fact that the government not only shouldn't be expected to improve things, it cannot be expected to improve things.

I'm saying that a station should have a strong incentive to do something different than what two or more other stations are doing.

Losing money is an incredibly powerful incentive. A radio station owner can bribe a politician. A radio station owner can bribe a government bureaucrat/regulator. But no radio station owner can bribe the marketplace. So, the best agency to enforce fairness in the marketplace is the marketplace itself, since it cannot be bribed and always acts in its own best interest.

 

[Al Johnson]

It was government action that made it the way it is. You talk as if someone wanted to impose government regulation where there is none. The politicians and bureaucrats got bribed a long time ago. The broadcast lobby got the rules they wanted; they got the game rigged in their favor. Then they merged, consolidated, automated, syndicated and guess what? They are still not making money. Look at stock price history. Look at the analysts' reports from the major brokerage firms. Read the annual reports. Ask yourself why GE got out of radio; why Disney is getting out and Viacom want to? Apparently losing money is not enough of an incentive to affect stupid, incompetent managers because they keep being stupid and incompetent. When something doesn't work, they do more of it. Apparently nobody told these people in B school that no matter how much you cut costs, nobody wants to buy a crappy product. Listeners listen less and some stop listening. Advertisers buy less and pay less for what they buy. The government can't do any worse and once upon a time, they actually did do better. I say radio was better (for advertisers, listeners and stockholders) under the old rules. Don't tell me changing to the old rules won't work because the old rules did work, including The Fairness Doctrine, which mostly applied to station editorials, not controversial talk show hosts back then like Wally George, Joe Pyne, Bob Grant and Morton Downey, Jr. Talk radio thrived in markets large enough to support it. New technology made syndication possible, not the fairness doctrine. And syndication made talk radio an affordable format for more stations, not the fairness doctrine.

 

[Radio_Realist]

It was government action that made it the way it is.

No, it was fundamental changes in the entire system. It was the rise of new, competing technologies. It was the rise of alternate delivery systems for entertainment programming. It was a change in the business climate, including the rise of marketing research and testing that showed radio ads didn't work all that well regardless of how many people heard them. It was, as you even mentioned, technologies that made syndication economically attractive.

Terrestrial radio is going through a transition period that could lead to changes similar to the radio programming changes that occurred between 1948 and 1968. In 1948, scripted comedies and dramas dominated the radio scene. Stations with wall-to-wall DJ formats 24/7 were unheard of in 1948. And, if you've read the histories of broadcasting, the dominant force in radio back in the 20's, 30's, and 40's were coast-to-coast networks. Any talk of syndication as something new must not know about NBC-Red and NBC-Blue, or CBS, or Mutual. The technology that brought Fibber McGee and Mollie to the nation's Philcos and Atwater-Kents was quite different, but the result was the same.

Government action was one contributing factor, but not the only factor. And certainly not the most important factor.

When something doesn't work, they do more of it.

You've just described the liberal philosophy of government.

I say radio was better (for advertisers, listeners and stockholders) under the old rules.

And I say radio was better in the past. But the rules were only a small part of the total picture. Whether or not there were new rules put in place wouldn't have made any difference. The bell cannot be unrung. Times have changed. Circumstances have changed. Conditions have changed. Generations of people have gotten old and died, and been replaced by different people -- people with different tastes and expectations.

Here's a simple and possibly bitter truth for you. The "good old days" are gone, and they aren't ever coming back.

 

[evnlee]

It was government action that made it the way it is.

No, it was fundamental changes in the entire system. It was the rise of new, competing technologies. It was the rise of alternate delivery systems for entertainment programming. It was a change in the business climate, including the rise of marketing research and testing that showed radio ads didn't work all that well regardless of how many people heard them. It was, as you even mentioned, technologies that made syndication economically attractive.

Terrestrial radio is going through a transition period that could lead to changes similar to the radio programming changes that occurred between 1948 and 1968. In 1948, scripted comedies and dramas dominated the radio scene. Stations with wall-to-wall DJ formats 24/7 were unheard of in 1948. And, if you've read the histories of broadcasting, the dominant force in radio back in the 20's, 30's, and 40's were coast-to-coast networks. Any talk of syndication as something new must not know about NBC-Red and NBC-Blue, or CBS, or Mutual. The technology that brought Fibber McGee and Mollie to the nation's Philcos and Atwater-Kents was quite different, but the result was the same.

Government action was one contributing factor, but not the only factor. And certainly not the most important factor.

When something doesn't work, they do more of it.

You've just described the liberal philosophy of government.

I say radio was better (for advertisers, listeners and stockholders) under the old rules.

And I say radio was better in the past. But the rules were only a small part of the total picture. Whether or not there were new rules put in place wouldn't have made any difference. The bell cannot be unrung. Times have changed. Circumstances have changed. Conditions have changed. Generations of people have gotten old and died, and been replaced by different people -- people with different tastes and expectations.

Here's a simple and possibly bitter truth for you. The "good old days" are gone, and they aren't ever coming back.

very very well put, RR.

 

[Al Johnson]

It was government action that made it the way it is.

No, it was fundamental changes in the entire system. It was the rise of new, competing technologies. It was the rise of alternate delivery systems for entertainment programming. It was a change in the business climate, including the rise of marketing research and testing that showed radio ads didn't work all that well regardless of how many people heard them. It was, as you even mentioned, technologies that made syndication economically attractive.

Terrestrial radio is going through a transition period that could lead to changes similar to the radio programming changes that occurred between 1948 and 1968. In 1948, scripted comedies and dramas dominated the radio scene. Stations with wall-to-wall DJ formats 24/7 were unheard of in 1948. And, if you've read the histories of broadcasting, the dominant force in radio back in the 20's, 30's, and 40's were coast-to-coast networks. Any talk of syndication as something new must not know about NBC-Red and NBC-Blue, or CBS, or Mutual. The technology that brought Fibber McGee and Mollie to the nation's Philcos and Atwater-Kents was quite different, but the result was the same.

Government action was one contributing factor, but not the only factor. And certainly not the most important factor.

When something doesn't work, they do more of it.

You've just described the liberal philosophy of government.

I say radio was better (for advertisers, listeners and stockholders) under the old rules.

And I say radio was better in the past. But the rules were only a small part of the total picture. Whether or not there were new rules put in place wouldn't have made any difference. The bell cannot be unrung. Times have changed. Circumstances have changed. Conditions have changed. Generations of people have gotten old and died, and been replaced by different people -- people with different tastes and expectations.

Here's a simple and possibly bitter truth for you. The "good old days" are gone, and they aren't ever coming back.

I find it hard to understand when people express a deep-seated hatred or distrust of the government when it comes to something as innocuous as promoting a greater range of political opinions on talk road, but defer completely to the government on significant questions like war, torture, indefinite detention incommunicado without trial, domestic surveillance, federal control of local schools.

The idea that the good old days were better seems to be a basic premise of conservative talk radio and conservative politicians (like former sports announcer, syndicated radio commentator and father of three talk show hosts Ronald Reagan).

I'd say liberals are more addicted to the solution du jour; jumping on the latest new idea and then jumping to the next. None of these ideas ever involve basic or systemic change since talk show hosts and politicians (left and right) always need something gone wrong to complain about and propose another solution for.

Or maybe some just like to argue for the sake arguing. Having a few gadflies around to act as catalysts does keep discussions interesting.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I find it hard to understand when people

I find it hard to understand how someone can make the observation that the government is ineffective at solving certain problems, and can extrapolate that into a diatribe about some sort of emotional antipathy for some aspects of the government. And, I can't see how anyone can link "hatred or distrust" as if they were somehow similar. Hate is an emotional reaction. Distrust is a logical reaction. I would hate the government if it were evil, but it is not evil. I distrust it when it attempts to accomplish things that government has no business accomplishing because it has a terrible track record.

I am shocked whenever I hear people who work in the media, whose stock in trade is supposed to be words, make such a fundamental error in English.

And what is with the non-sequiturs about the conduct of military operations in time of war? National defense is one of the few things that the Federal government is supposed to do. And, for the most part, it's one of the very few things that the government has done well.

 

[robbbc]

Let's see:

Privatized airline security brought us the 9/11 nightmare. The government had to step in and socialize airline security. Then, for it's trouble, it had to bailout the airlines- how many times have we the people done this now? Yes the so-called unregulated entitites sure do show up the the government trough when times get tough then scream out deregulation when it suits their purposes.

Now let's talk about a little Chinese Gluten issue? Yes sir, if only we could shut down the FDA entirely then that wouldn't have happened. Mad Cow disease anyone? How but some e. coli with your spinach? Anyone want to by drugs without FDA approval? You can trust our brazillian/chinese free trade farmer and pharmaceutical friends! Let's bring back the snake oil salesmen! How bout Lake Erie on fire with some pollution?

The government does a decent and necessary job of regulating many industries, it could do a better job if it was properly funded and was not full of industry hacks as often as it is. Since there is a limited amount of real estate in the public airwaves it is necessary and proper for the government to ensure that the spectrum has sufficient competition. This should limit the number of stations that broadcasters can own in a particular market and the nation as a whole. That limit need not be 7/7/7 but it needs to be reduced from its current level.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Let's see:

Let's stick to government butting its nose in where it has no business, such as controlling the content of what is discussed on the radio, and not get bogged down in off-topic speculation like national defense (which airline security is part of) or regulating food sold in interstate commerce (which is another thing the government is supposed to be responsible for).

Since there is a limited amount of real estate in the public airwaves it is necessary and proper for the government to ensure that the spectrum has sufficient competition.

Given that the new HD technology has virtually doubled the amount of real estate in the public airwaves, and given that so many independent, non-mega corporation radio stations can't manage to find anything to put on the air besides infomercials for snake oil, that argument holds little water. When the only simultaneous mass communications medium was terrestrial radio, that was one thing. With the increase in channel space thanks to HD, and the fact the so much of the AM band is going to waste anyway, the arguments over it being "necessary and proper for the government to ensure that the spectrum has sufficient competition" lacks the weight it once might have.

Besides, this isn't about limiting ownership. This is about "Dems push fairness doctrine". It's about one political party attempting to limit the ability of the other political party to communicate its message to voters. It's not about changing ownership limits. No one who is advocating a new version of some sort of "fairness" doctrine cares whether or not all the stations in one town are owned by one company or a dozen. As long as they shut down those broadcasters who are communicating the message of the other political party, they'll be content.