Dems push fairness doctrine

[Al Johnson]

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.

Limiting ownership is another possible approach.

When we discuss attempts of one party to limit the ability of the other party to communicate it's message, let's also talk about past efforts of the Republican Party to make the so-called "mainstream media" (aka "drive-by media, aka network news) more "fair and balanced." Or attempts by the Republican Party to exert political control of public broadcasting. Apparently it's one thing when "they" do it; it's different when "we" do it.

I am not talking about airline security. I am talking about airline deregulation of 1978 which shut down the Civil Aeronautics Board which had regulated airline fares and assigned routes. Even before 9/11 airline service was terrible and airlines went bankrupt or out of business.

National defense is something the government does well? By lying their way into illegal wars. By breaking international law. And by getting itself into quagmires like the middle East and Southeast Asia. Sorry, regulation of broadcasting (and of the airlines) worked and for the most part worked well. Certainly better than the military's record in Iraq and Viet Nam.

Your comment about HD provides further evidence of the incompetent management of the broadcasting industry.

The government has been in the business of controlling content in broadcasting since the beginning of radio. To say they have no business doing so is patently false. It's just that there is considerable disagreement on what they should do to control content? A revised and updated fairness doctrine? Not let Howard say !@#$? Not let Janet Jackson flash her boob? No payola? Require that those who buy political ads identify themselves? No cigarette ads? Public service programming requirements? No violence on TV? C'mon! Even you don't believe the government has no business regulating broadcasting. This is about whose ox is gored. You just don't want them to do something that would encourage liberal talk radio. If the government were going to encourage conservative views on the air (i.e., stopping liberal bias), you'd be all for it.

If you prefer not to respond to any of the above, feel free to look for typos.

 

[Radio_Realist]

When we discuss attempts of one party to limit the ability of the other party to communicate it's message, let's also talk about past efforts of the Republican Party to make the so-called "mainstream media" (aka "drive-by media, aka network news) more "fair and balanced."

OK, can you list any pieces of legislation or regulations that Republicans introduced along those lines? All I am aware of is "bully pulpit" rhetoric urging broadcasters to be more fair, and/or calls on the public to demand more equitable coverage. If you know of specific pieces of legislation that were ever acted upon in Congress, I'd be interesting in hearing about them. Or even if you know of specific plans to introduce legislation that never came to fruition. I do recognize that at this point, the Democrats, particularly Dennis Kuchinich, are in the floating trial balloon stage prior to actually introducing a bill in Congress.

Even before 9/11 airline service was terrible and airlines went bankrupt or out of business.

Airline service is determined by the laws of supply and demand. Badly managed airlines went out of business, well-run airlines didn't. It's like radio stations. Those that are well-run succeed, those that are badly run fail. It's called "capitalism".

National defense is something the government does well?

With the exception of the attack of September 11, and the earlier World Trade Center bombing that the then President did nothing about, our government has managed to prevent any attacks on American soil by any foreign power. With the exception of hordes of illegal aliens crossing our borders with impunity, our government has been quite effective at protecting America from invasion.

The government has been in the business of controlling content in broadcasting since the beginning of radio.
Actually, the government's original involvement in radio was to control technical specifications, not content. And assigning frequencies and promulgating technical standards is an appropriate exercise of the government's mandate to regulate interstate commerce. But the fact that the government began unconstitutional meddling in direct violation of the First Amendment back in the late 1920's doesn't prove that such unconstitutional activities were legal then, nor that they are legal now.

Even you don't believe the government has no business regulating broadcasting.

You are correct. I believe the government should issue licenses for specific channels or frequencies. They should control transmission power so that stations don't interfere with each other. They should set the standards for proper AM and FM transmissions so that radio receiver makers can make receivers that will receive all stations.

The only thing I don't agree with is with the government regulating content, beyond applying the same laws of slander and libel to broadcast communication that apply to print or other media.

You just don't want them to do something that would encourage liberal talk radio. If the government were going to encourage conservative views on the air (i.e., stopping liberal bias), you'd be all for it.

No, that is not an accurate statement. How about if you leave it to me to state what I believe, and you stick to stating what you believe, OK?

I don't want to see the government attempt to create an artificial situation where broadcasters are forced to put programming on the air that doesn't draw enough listeners to be economically feasible. I don't want to see broadcasters compelled to do the electronic equivalent of forcing newspapers to give some government-mandated quantity of page space to some government mandated alternative point of view.

There is one thing that really confuses me. What part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is it that you don't understand?

It doesn't say "Congress shall make no law unless they really, really want to". It doesn't say "Congress shall only make a few really good laws". It says in plain, easy to understand English "Congress shall make no law". Period. No Law. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

 

[robbbc]

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.

So what you're saying is that government regulation is appropriate in some cases? Anyone who didn't flunk out of Young Republicans School would know that the regulation of interstate commerce was never intended to lead to the horrific liberal FDA or USDA. That the founders of our great nation never thought that the FDA or USDA would be necessary and certainly wouldn't approve of such institutions today. This is the theory of Originalism or Original intent.

First of all, as has been pointed out by me- the Dems have not been pushing the fairness doctrine. They have been pushing ownership caps, local control, and looking into potential diversions of political funds to advisors to radio station editorialists. To avoid discussing this the conservatives on this site have been having some discussion about the fairness doctrine, which they go sniffing around the internet to find evidence of its return, but which turns out to be little more than more of the aforementioned re-interpreted as a return of the fairness doctrine. I am still looking for Dennis talking about the fairness doctine. So far we have unsubstantiated rumor from the American Spectator about investigating Rush's advisors. How in the heck is that the fairness doctrine? Can someone find me Mr. Kucinich's opinion on the matter? I can! here you go:

"I am working for serious media reform, including substantial free air time for candidates and parties. Given the high cost of campaigns, the power of corporate special interests, and the fact that the networks are given free use of the public's airwaves, I believe that the networks should be required to give something back other than "reality" shows.

Media conglomerates are currently among the most powerful lobbyists against media reform, but I believe that were the media to provide substantive coverage of politics it would actually boost both media ratings and voter turnout.

In addition to requiring free air time for political campaigns, we need to create a greater diversity of viewpoints in the media by breaking up the major media conglomerates, encouraging competition and quality as well as diversity. We should place new caps on media ownership and ban the granting of exceptions to those caps. We should limit the number of media outlets one corporation can own in a given medium, such as radio, print, or television. We should strictly prohibit cross-ownership and vertical integration.
I believe the people should be involved in the maintenance of their airwaves, creating public media outlets controlled by community boards similar to the model of Pacifica Radio. Funding for public broadcasting channels on television and radio should be greatly expanded, assuring the existence of media outlets free of the influence of advertisers.

I aim to promote knowledge of the public process through which citizens can challenge the licenses of local broadcast outlets failing to provide local coverage and coverage directed at the whole community, or outlets airing excessive violence.

Not-for-profit groups should be allowed to obtain low-power FM radio-station licenses. The development of new, community-based, noncommercial broadcasting outlets should be encouraged."

Sounds pretty good to me. Where's your beef? A little free airtime? Not saying I'm on board with all of it, but I am a lot closer to that than the current situation.

 

[Radio_Realist]

So what you're saying is that government regulation is appropriate in some cases?

Sure it is. Having all traffic lights across the entire county standardized on Green for go, Red for stop, and Yellow for "go a little faster to beat the light" is a good thing. So is driving on the right side in all 50 states.

That the founders of our great nation never thought that the FDA or USDA would be necessary and certainly wouldn't approve of such institutions today.

Any further delving into that issue would get this entire thread moved to "Take it outside", which appears to be the fate of most threads that start to get interesting.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Sounds like unworkable, pie-in-the-sky, ineffective claptrap to me. Free airtime doesn't mean squat if listeners and/or viewers won't tune in. It sounds real good. But all it means is that broadcasters will lose time that they could profitably so that various political candidates could reinforce the opinions of their supporters, while everyone else would simply switch stations whenever a free airtime program came on.

As for the limiting of ownership bits, does it really matter if the stations that carry the top syndication programs are owned by a few corporations or if they're owned by a larger number of smaller organizations? When the average listener tunes in to Rush's syndicated program, does it matter who owns the tower it's broadcast from? Even when stations are owned by small-scale businesses, they still just tap into the same satellite feeds as the mega corporations. Or, if they're music format stations, they subscribe to the same list of songs from the same handful of consultants which they play to death.

Crusades to break up large companies always resonate well with voters, especially the voters who support socialists like Kucinich. They don't mean much. If the breakups do happen, they separate entities created often end up being publicly traded and owned by the same people anyway. Even with separate owners, all the stations will still broadcast whatever makes them the most profit. Instead of Clear Channel running different formats on each of its stations in a given cluster, Clear Channel will run half of them and some new company will run the other half, but none of the stations will commit economic suicide by taking each other on head-to-head or by switching to any format that doesn't get good ratings.

I'll admit that his rhetoric sounds good. The goals listed in the statements of Dennis the Menace that you put in bold face aren't bad. But believing that the methods he proposes to accomplish those goals will actually work requires a leap of faith and/or denial of reality that I just can't manage to pull off.

It's not about whether or not his goals are worth pursuing, though I have strong doubts about them. It's about whether or not his proposed actions will actually lead to the outcomes he advocates. And those actions will only result in the outcomes he wants if they are combined with unconstitutional laws that violate the first amendment.

 

[Al Johnson]

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.

RR, if conservative talk radio functions as a party organ (we know it does) then this is not about the fairness doctrine. It's about equal time rules.

There is one thing that really confuses me. What part of "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is it that you don't understand?

The courts have long held that broadcasters, using the scarce resource of public airways, do not enjoy them same constitutional carte blanche as newspapers or speech makers on platforms.

Our essential disagreement is you say broadcasting functions as an open market with unfettered competition. I say it is an oligopoly and therefore needs to be regulated. I will agree with you on any reasonable approach that does allow real competition. I am happy to dispose of all that "fire in a crowded theater" BS. If you really want to adopt the Libertarian "no law means no law" approach I can go along, as long as you adopt the whole Libertarian approach: Auction station licenses to the highest bidder for a fixed period of time and the high bidder can do anything they want during the license period. Licenses can not be sold or transferred. At the end of the license period, another auction is held.

Right now we are in a situation where broadcasters control the market and can keep certain products (like liberal talk) off the shelves. Monopolies and oligopolies have always tried to use the government to protect their positions and to restrict new products, new technologies and new competitors. The government is already involved and it's on the side of Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Entercom, Citadel and a handful of other big corporate owners. I don't see that their interests are my interests (or yours), so if the government is in the game I'd rather they represent my interests. If you want to get government out of the game, then get them out all the way and the corporate owners find out how open markets and free competition really work.

 

[robbbc]

So what you're saying is that government regulation is appropriate in some cases?

Sure it is. Having all traffic lights across the entire county standardized on Green for go, Red for stop, and Yellow for "go a little faster to beat the light" is a good thing. So is driving on the right side in all 50 states.

That the founders of our great nation never thought that the FDA or USDA would be necessary and certainly wouldn't approve of such institutions today.

Any further delving into that issue would get this entire thread moved to "Take it outside", which appears to be the fate of most threads that start to get interesting.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Sounds like unworkable, pie-in-the-sky, ineffective claptrap to me. Free airtime doesn't mean squat if listeners and/or viewers won't tune in. It sounds real good. But all it means is that broadcasters will lose time that they could profitably so that various political candidates could reinforce the opinions of their supporters, while everyone else would simply switch stations whenever a free airtime program came on.

As for the limiting of ownership bits, does it really matter if the stations that carry the top syndication programs are owned by a few corporations or if they're owned by a larger number of smaller organizations? When the average listener tunes in to Rush's syndicated program, does it matter who owns the tower it's broadcast from? Even when stations are owned by small-scale businesses, they still just tap into the same satellite feeds as the mega corporations. Or, if they're music format stations, they subscribe to the same list of songs from the same handful of consultants which they play to death.

Crusades to break up large companies always resonate well with voters, especially the voters who support socialists like Kucinich. They don't mean much. If the breakups do happen, they separate entities created often end up being publicly traded and owned by the same people anyway. Even with separate owners, all the stations will still broadcast whatever makes them the most profit. Instead of Clear Channel running different formats on each of its stations in a given cluster, Clear Channel will run half of them and some new company will run the other half, but none of the stations will commit economic suicide by taking each other on head-to-head or by switching to any format that doesn't get good ratings.

I'll admit that his rhetoric sounds good. The goals listed in the statements of Dennis the Menace that you put in bold face aren't bad. But believing that the methods he proposes to accomplish those goals will actually work requires a leap of faith and/or denial of reality that I just can't manage to pull off.

It's not about whether or not his goals are worth pursuing, though I have strong doubts about them. It's about whether or not his proposed actions will actually lead to the outcomes he advocates. And those actions will only result in the outcomes he wants if they are combined with unconstitutional laws that violate the first amendment.

Claptrap? You gotta be joking! It's economics 101. Antitrust encourages competition in the marketplace. If we only had one gas station company that was owned by one oil company that owned all the oil it would be broken up. If grocery stores were owned by Unilever or P&G do you suppose they would offer the others products? Maybe they would carry something here and there, but the general thrust of the store would be different. If individual owners of radio stations chose their radio programs of their own choosing without getting "told" what to play by the company that owns them, which also owns the syndicated program- things would be different by a mile. If I worked as a program manager at a CC station and I had to choose between something from the mother ship and something from a competing syndicator, you wouldn't need to tell me what to do.

As for free airtime, I think the old president du jour gets that already. Are you saying that should stop? Maybe commercials could run at the bottom of the screen?

 

[Radio_Realist]

RR, if conservative talk radio functions as a party organ (we know it does)

I don't know that. In fact, some of the conservative talk hosts that I listen to on a regular basis are in extremely strong opposition to several of President Bush's policies. In particular, I've never heard any conservative talk host support the President's immigration policies (or lack thereof). From what I hear on the air, conservative talk hosts support the GOP on issues that they agree with the GOP on, and they speak out against the GOP on issues that they disagree with the GOP on. The fact that conservatives and the Republican Party are usually headed in the same direction doesn't prove that either one leads the other.

The same goes for liberal talk hosts and Democrat politicians. I don't believe that the liberal talk hosts automatically support the Democrat Party. They simply tend to be marching in the same direction.

The courts have long held that broadcasters, using the scarce resource of public airways, do not enjoy them same constitutional carte blanche as newspapers or speech makers on platforms.

And, the courts have long been wrong. The "scare resources of public airways" is a convenient excuse, and one which holds far less water in 2007 than it did in 1927.

I am happy to dispose of all that "fire in a crowded theater" BS.

I would not dispose of that. I would simply expect broadcast media to be held to the same legal standards as all other media. "Freedom of speech" does not mean "Freedom from consequences of speech". One is free to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, but one is not free from subsequent arrest and punishment. That is no different from the laws about slander and libel that I referred to in my earlier post.

Right now we are in a situation where broadcasters control the market and can keep certain products (like liberal talk) off the shelves.

No, we are in a market where broadcasters put liberal talk on the shelves, it didn't sell, and so they took it off the shelves. If you're going to use store shelves as an example, then liberal talk is the radio equivalent of Crystal Pepsi.

If you want to get government out of the game, then get them out all the way and the corporate owners find out how open markets and free competition really work.

I'm all for that, except that I will repeat my support for the government promulgating technical standards. I'd even go along with the deal about re-auctioning licenses, providing that in order to participate in an auction for a license, the individual or corporation doing the bidding must demonstrate ownership of a transmitter, tower, antenna, and related studio equipment that is in place and ready to be turned on the day that the auction license is won. If the owner of the license for a certain frequency has invested in sufficient resources to actually operate a station on that frequency, then anyone who attempts to win that license away from them must make a similar investment in advance of the auction.

I do support the protection of private property rights.

Claptrap? You gotta be joking! It's economics 101.

You are correct. It is basic, entry-level Freshman economics. Learning how businesses get around anti-trust legislation is taught in the advanced Junior and Senior year courses. If you've ever heard the expression "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", it's referring to attempting to make important decisions based on what one learned in Freshman "101" intro courses.

 

[Al Johnson]

The courts have long held that broadcasters, using the scarce resource of public airways, do not enjoy them same constitutional carte blanche as newspapers or speech makers on platforms.

And, the courts have long been wrong. The "scare resources of public airways" is a convenient excuse, and one which holds far less water in 2007 than it did in 1927.

I am happy to dispose of all that "fire in a crowded theater" BS.

I would not dispose of that. I would simply expect broadcast media to be held to the same legal standards as all other media. "Freedom of speech" does not mean "Freedom from consequences of speech". One is free to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, but one is not free from subsequent arrest and punishment. That is no different from the laws about slander and libel that I referred to in my earlier post.

Right now we are in a situation where broadcasters control the market and can keep certain products (like liberal talk) off the shelves.

No, we are in a market where broadcasters put liberal talk on the shelves, it didn't sell, and so they took it off the shelves. If you're going to use store shelves as an example, then liberal talk is the radio equivalent of Crystal Pepsi.

If you want to get government out of the game, then get them out all the way and the corporate owners find out how open markets and free competition really work.

I'm all for that, except that I will repeat my support for the government promulgating technical standards. I'd even go along with the deal about re-auctioning licenses, providing that in order to participate in an auction for a license, the individual or corporation doing the bidding must demonstrate ownership of a transmitter, tower, antenna, and related studio equipment that is in place and ready to be turned on the day that the auction license is won. If the owner of the license for a certain frequency has invested in sufficient resources to actually operate a station on that frequency, then anyone who attempts to win that license away from them must make a similar investment in advance of the auction.

Courts are never wrong. The constitution gives them the power to say what the constitution means so the constitution means whatever they say it means.

The phrase "fire in a crowded theater" comes from a decision by Oliver Wendell Holmes saying it is permissible to pass a law making illegal for the press or an individual to criticize the government.

Liberal talk never made it to the shelf in most markets. When it did, it often got the worst possible shelf location, while conservative talk got eye level or the end of the aisle with in-store displays and space in the weekly circular. It's more like Pepsi One. It gets two bottles width worth of shelf space on the top shelf for 2-liter bottles and and one six pack width of shelf space on the bottom for cans. It sells out in a day after the guy from Pepsi has re-stocked and for the rest of the week, you can't get it (until the Pepsi guy comes back). Meantime the store is over-stocked with the other types of Pepsi, so those are still available for sale. The MBA's down in Dallas look at their sales figures and say "let's drop Pepsi One; it's not selling."

I think you're raising unnecessary barriers to competitive bidding for broadcast licenses (and depriving current licensees who get out-bid or who decide not to bid again of the opportunity to get something for their physical plants). Yes, prospective bidders should be required to show they have the financial resources to operate. It makes more sense for the new licensee to buy the existing transmitter and/or studio facilities. Or maybe it would make more sense for a new licensee to rent space on another station's tower. Maybe some entrepreneur could make a nice business for himself renting tower space, studio and office space and equipment to station operators. Let's not put up barriers to the innovation and entrepreneurial vision that's supposed to come with a free market.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Courts are never wrong.

Tell that to Dred Scott.

I think you're raising unnecessary barriers to competitive bidding for broadcast licenses (and depriving current licensees who get out-bid or who decide not to bid again of the opportunity to get something for their physical plants).

Hardly. Except for the towers, any equipment owned by someone who loses the auction for his license can be sold to operators in other markets.

It makes more sense for the new licensee to buy the existing transmitter and/or studio facilities.

Are you going to require the losing licensee to sell to the winner? What if the loser would rather move his equipment to greener pastures? How would the public be served if the new licensee is not in a position to go on the air when he wins? The station would have to go dark while the new licensee purchased and installed his equipment.

Or maybe it would make more sense for a new licensee to rent space on another station's tower.

Only if the tower was in the exact right location. And, what happens when the other station loses their auction?

For that matter, what incentive would there be for any station to broadcast in the public interest if they knew they'd face an auction that they could easily lose? Why wouldn't broadcasters simply bid high to win a station, milk it for all its worth by pandering to the lowest common denominators in all things broadcast, and if they lose the next auction, so what? Why should a station attempt to build any sort of long-term relationship with its listening audience by providing good broadcast service if they could easily lose their license for no reason other than someone with deeper pockets is willing to bid higher?

And with limitations to number of stations owned, those with the deepest pockets would end up with the strongest signals in the biggest markets, and the rest of the country would be served by the also-rans. Of course, to people who think that New York City and Los Angeles are the only parts of the nation that matter and who have no respect or regard to anyone who lives in "flyover country", that might be a strong argument in favor of such auctions.

 

[Al Johnson]

Courts are never wrong.

Tell that to Dred Scott.

The court interpreted the constitution as it stood at the time. Then congress and the state legislatures amended the constitution. Courts have the authority to declare what's constitutional and what's not. They are like umpires: If the umpire says it was a strike, it was a strike. No matter how it looks to anybody else.

For that matter, what incentive would there be for any station to broadcast in the public interest if they knew they'd face an auction that they could easily lose?

Now it sounds like you are concerned about content and want regulations to assure that content is regulated to conform to what you think proper. There goes "no law" and free markets.

The market can also sort out the issues of renting, selling and moving transmitters and equipment. Many stations already operate from antenna farms or otherwise share sticks. Nothing new there. Some stations rent office space, transmitter space and equipment. Nothing new there either. Interesting turnabout. I suggest a completely free market environment and now you want to add rules.

And you assume operators would vacate because they lost a bid. Operators might choose to upgrade to a better class of license, higher power or different location. In such cases, operators could continue likely continue to use most existing facilities and equipment; just like anyone takes their furniture with them when they move to a better house or apartment.

Given the experience of the last 10 years, I don't think you find multi-station operators trying to win auctions on hundreds of stations, especially given the kind of debt involved. Nor would you find bankers or stockholders willing to go along any more. Even under current rules, corporations are downsizing. Some are getting out of radio altogether.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I suggest a completely free market environment and now you want to add rules.

No, you proposed a bad idea, that of recurring auctions for license renewals. As with all bad ideas, it spawned additional, corrective ideas that simply complicate things.

As for predicting what might happen if your idea of recurring auctions were to be implemented, that's too akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Since your proposal for recurring license auctions won't ever happen, I'll defer on speculating what impact it might have.

 

[evnlee]

Liberal talk never made it to the shelf in most markets. When it did, it often got the worst possible shelf location, while conservative talk got eye level or the end of the aisle with in-store displays and space in the weekly circular. It's more like Pepsi One. It gets two bottles width worth of shelf space on the top shelf for 2-liter bottles and and one six pack width of shelf space on the bottom for cans. It sells out in a day after the guy from Pepsi has re-stocked and for the rest of the week, you can't get it (until the Pepsi guy comes back). Meantime the store is over-stocked with the other types of Pepsi, so those are still available for sale. The MBA's down in Dallas look at their sales figures and say "let's drop Pepsi One; it's not selling."

and...................were back to the 'conspiracies' about why Libtalk failed....

Yet, there are instances to prove you wrong.

In Atlanta, AAR was placed on a strong signal with adequate promotion. It failed miserably.

 

[Radio_Realist]

In Atlanta, AAR was placed on a strong signal with adequate promotion. It failed miserably.

What gets me is that no radio professional question it when a music format is test marketed in a few markets before a national roll-out, and no one questions anything it it fails in the test markets, and therefore isn't rolled out. Only the advocates of liberal talk radio are insisting that all markets must have a liberal news/talk station on a strong signal before they'll accept that it fails purely on its own merits.

 

[evnlee]

http://newsbusters.org/node/12894

 

[Al Johnson]

Nice to watch somebody zig-zag, backtrack and tap-dance so smoothly when somebody suggests a real free market.

The NAB spends millions of dollars in lobbying. It is one of the biggest and most influential lobbies in Washington. They do that to rig the game in their favor. No, they don't want a free market either.

OK, a free market may not happen (never say "never"). But some form of a new fairness doctrine probably will.

What does "ditto head" mean? It means somebody who doesn't think for himself and instead parrots what he is told. If I were going to spin things for the benefit of Lowry Mays et fils, I'd want to get paid for it.

So here is the truth (as opposed to the lies the GOP water carriers tell you).

The fairness doctrine was never invoked in connection with talk radio programming. It was invoked (rarely) in connection with editorials. Hardly anybody does editorials anymore. When they did, they had to allow somebody with an opposing view an opportunity to reply. Mostly, nobody bothered to ask to reply. When they did, it was usually some well-meaning earnest soul responding to a professionally-written and professionally-delivered editorial (delivered by a known and familiar station figure). Not exactly a level playing field but that satisfied the fairness doctrine.

Political talk radio existed in major markets under the fairness doctrine since the 50s with ideological hosts like Joe Pyne and Morton Downey, Jr (Rush took Downey's place in Sacramento when Downey went national on TV). People called in. People gave their opinions. The host gave his opinion and told callers they were idiots and to "go gargle with razor blades" (or some such). Not exactly a level playing field but the callers did give their opinions and the fairness doctrine was satisfied.

So Rush et al lie when they tell you the fairness doctrine would stifle or did stifle conservative talk radio. They are not worried about right-wing talk being silenced. They are worried about liberal talk getting on the air (more than it already has). If they are so sure liberal talk is a "failure," why do they talk about it, even obsess about it, so much?

True conservatives favor freedom. True conservatives have been driven out of the Republican Party and into the Libertarian Party. The neo-cons dominating the GOP and right-wing talk don't want a free market but they lie and say they do, as they stack the deck in their own favor.

Yet, there are instances to prove you wrong.

In Atlanta, AAR was placed on a strong signal with adequate promotion. It failed miserably.

And there are instances to prove me right.

Adequate promotion? How about zero promotion. This was a turnkey station running Air America wall-to-wall in the expanded AM band. The station did not have numbers before Air America and has disappeared from the ratings since Air America. The best it ever did was when it had Air America (with the very weak morning line-up Air America had at the time). But don't let facts or logic get in the way of the designated spin.

In New York, country music failed miserably (three times I can think of). By your illogic, maybe country radio is a "failure" on its own merits, too.

 

[evnlee]

Adequate promotion? How about zero promotion. This was a turnkey station running Air America wall-to-wall in the expanded AM band. The station did not have numbers before Air America and has disappeared from the ratings since Air America. The best it ever did was when it had Air America (with the very weak morning line-up Air America had at the time). But don't let facts or logic get in the way of the designated spin.

In New York, country music failed miserably (three times I can think of). By your illogic, maybe country radio is a "failure" on its own merits, too.

sorry, Al, but that has been argued before and that argument loses.

I know for certain now you must be getting your info from left leaning 'blogs'.

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.

So, with all that, and a large liberal base here in downtown ATL, it failed.

How can you say it received 'zero' promotion, when CL editor Ken Edelstien hosted a show every weekend on WWAA, and dedicated ad space and promotion in the CL every week for the better part of 2 years( the most likely paper a 'liberal' is going to read state wide )? When Rodney Ho ( the radio bet reporter) of the AJC wrote 7 articles about WWAA during it's stay, and blogged on Access Atlanta ad nauseum? When Franken comes to town and performs at the Variety Theater to 'promote' Air America, was that not a 'promotion'?

Please explain to me how all that was 'zero promotion', and try to include facts, not conjecture.

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?

WWAA did receive 'promotion' and it had a 'strong signal', and it failed. That's the truth, even if it hurts your feelings. Sorry, Al.

 

[Al Johnson]

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?

 

[Radio_Realist]

The fairness doctrine was never invoked in connection with talk radio programming.

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? How many times must you be reminded that the FCC only had to carry a big stick, they didn't actually have to hit anyone with it for it to serve as an effective deterrent?

You might disagree with that observation, but all I read from you is that you simply ignore that possibility as if it were never even raised.

Speaking of feelings,

ARRRRRGGHHH!!!!

Why does each new participant in this thread who has a personal emotional investment in liberal talk radio have to keep dragging up the same, lame argument about "feelings". This isn't about any sort of emotional reaction on those of us who look at this with realistic perspective. Liberal talk was tested. It tested very badly. It might not have totally failed, but it only earned a "D", or maybe a "C-". Professional broadcasters have learned how to do sample tests, and how to interpret the results. Liberal talk had a valid sample test, and the results simply weren't good enough to convince many broadcasters to roll out the product.

 

[Al Johnson]

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? How many times must you be reminded that the FCC only had to carry a big stick, they didn't actually have to hit anyone with it for it to serve as an effective deterrent?

What you say is simply false.

How many times will you ignore the fact that right-wing political talk started, developed and thrived under the fairness doctrine? Wally George. Joe Pyne. Bob Grant. George Putnam. Even Rush Limbaugh. And scores more. Right wing talk was alive and well under the fairness doctrine. Nobody was intimidated by fairness doctrine in the 60s and 70s. There weren't as many talk stations because talk radio was, of necessity given the current state of technology, all local and live (therefore expensive to produce). But stations doing various formats often had an "open line," "party line," "talk back" (or something similar) call in show with an opinionated host arguing with callers who disagreed with him.

Talk stations back then didn't concentrate as heavily on political talk. News/talk stations still had news blocks in morning and/or afternoon drive, or more comedy and feature oriented morning shows. Advice and lifestyle shows were still a big part of most talk stations. Sports talk was not yet it's own format, so talk stations also did sports talk and most carried play by play of sporting events. Political talk was just not the big thing back then despite some skilled and controversial air-talent. Or are you going to claim that jocks, radio shrinks and money experts were put on because stations were intimidated not to do too much political talk?

Your friend Evnlee brought up feelings. Not I.

Me I don't care much what's on the radio that I don't listen to as long as something is on the air that I do want to listen to. I can understand people who like, say, Oldies complaining about all the rap and hip-hop stations in their market when there is nothing for their tastes. But there is plenty of conservative talk so why do fans of that format get so worked up over the possibility, the mere idea, of liberal talk existing?

Or maybe you just like to take an opposite viewpoint and stir things up, and you believe none of what you say.

 

[Radio_Realist]

But there is plenty of conservative talk so why do fans of that format get so worked up over the possibility, the mere idea, of liberal talk existing?

I am not "worked up" over the idea of liberal talk existing. I am "worked up" over the idea of the government intervening to force broadcasters to air liberal talk programs. If liberal talk programs succeed on their own, fine. If any radio format, talk or music, requires legislation or arm-twisting or threats to start yanking licenses if broadcasters don't air liberal talk programs, then that format shouldn't be on the air in the first place. For that matter, even if liberal talk could succeed on its own, without government intervention, I'd still oppose any attempt by the government to enforce some sort of quotas on formats.

Why do you fans of liberal talk insist on attempting to state our positions for us? Tell you what, instead of you expressing my opinion, and getting it wrong, why don't you stick to presenting your opinions, and let me worry about presenting mine? Or are your erroneous statements of what you claim to be my opinions another example of some sort of "fairness" on your part?