Dems push fairness doctrine

[Al Johnson]

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

It ain't gonna happen.

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

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

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

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

The current rules (including, most especially, current ownership limits) were enacted under a Democratic administration and championed by, among others, the inventor of the Internet, Oscar-winner Al Gore. If Clear Channel gives more money to Republicans it is because they were able to buy Democratic politicians cheap.

The FCC has five members, two of whom must be from the minority party. If one of three members is a "moderate" Democrat or DLC'er, nothing changes.

 

[kaufcom]

The current rules (including, most especially, current ownership limits) were enacted under a Democratic administration,

The current rules were passed by Republican dominated Congress and signed (mistakenly) by President Clinton. Just about everyone (particularly the Dems) think that was a big screw-up. If the Dems win big next year, there in no doubt that the days of radio de-regulations are over.

If Clear Channel gives more money to Republicans it is because they were able to buy Democratic politicians cheap.

You're right. They give $19 to Repubs for every $1 to Dems. Expect that to change next year.

The FCC has five members, two of whom must be from the minority party. If one of three members is a "moderate" Democrat or DLC'er, nothing changes.

History shows that when the FCC changes after a Presidential victory by the opposition party, there are usually big changes in the works.

 

[SaltyDog]

The current rules were passed by Republican dominated Congress and signed (mistakenly) by President Clinton. Just about everyone (particularly the Dems) think that was a big screw-up. If the Dems win big next year, there in no doubt that the days of radio de-regulations are over.

You may be right. I've been bearish on satellite radio from the beginning but they're looking better and better.

 

[Al Johnson]

102 Posts on this thread and somebody wants to start another on the same topic?

The other thread is: "Al Gore promotes return of Fairness Doctrine." Last time I looked Al Gore was a Democrat. That makes three Democrats now.

I notice the person who started the redundant thread has complained in the past about other people starting new threads on old topics.

Is there anything about this topic that can be said, which hasn't been said already. Except for the question that remains unanswered in this thread: Why are some people so obsessed with this issue?

 

[Radio_Realist]

Except for the question that remains unanswered in this thread: Why are some people so obsessed with this issue?

Because if a new version of a "fairness doctrine" is enacted, albeit under some new name, it would be one of the worst things that could happen to this republic. It would not only be a disaster for talk radio, or for broadcasting in general. It would be a disaster for the nation.

Some people are actually more concerned for the entire nation than with the Arbitrons for next quarter.

I'd reminded of the people in Venezuela who said nothing as their rights were eroded steadily because those issues weren't anything they were "obsessed" with. Then the dictator down there cancels their soap operas, and they take to the streets.

 

[Al Johnson]

Except for the question that remains unanswered in this thread: Why are some people so obsessed with this issue?

Because if a new version of a "fairness doctrine" is enacted, albeit under some new name, it would be one of the worst things that could happen to this republic. It would not only be a disaster for talk radio, or for broadcasting in general. It would be a disaster for the nation.

Some people are actually more concerned for the entire nation than with the Arbitrons for next quarter.

I'd reminded of the people in Venezuela who said nothing as their rights were eroded steadily because those issues weren't anything they were "obsessed" with. Then the dictator down there cancels their soap operas, and they take to the streets.

RR, it memory serves, you have been one of those most adamant about NOT starting new threads for existing topics.

With all due respect, bull!

Disaster? Puh-leeze. A meteor striking the Earth is a disaster. Tidal waves. Hurricanes. Pandemics. Those are all disasters. Boils. Locusts. The Nile turning to blood. They are disasters, too. A change in broadcasting regulations, a disaster? No way.

Taking cigarette commercials off radio and TV had far more impact than the presence or absence of the fairness doctrine and it was barely a blip.

All this discussion about a non-event and non-issue, which some feel compelled to misrepresent is because:

(1) Some people are driven to believe and repeat whatever Rush tells them.
(2) Broadcasters are entirely self-absorbed and tend to think anything involving them is of Earth-shattering consequence.


Lie: Political talk radio exists today because the fairness doctrine was repealed.
Truth: Political talk radio was doing fine in major markets under the fairness doctrine. Technology which made national syndication feasible caused the increase in talk format stations.

Lie: A new fairness doctrine would kill (conservative) talk radio.
Truth: No way. At most minor tweaking to current shows would take place. The audience probably would not notice.

Lie: Any of this matters.
Truth: It does not, except to those afraid of liberal views on the radio.

I have to wonder why those who claim liberal opinions are inherently flawed worry so much about somebody hearing them? They must not trust popular judgment that much; just like somebody shutting down opposition radio stations in South America. It's interesting how those who want to keep differing opinions off the radio claim they are the ones being silenced.

 

[evnlee]

All this discussion about a non-event and non-issue, which some feel compelled to misrepresent is because:

Some people are driven to believe and repeat whatever Rush tells them.

Ok Al. 'Splain this:

In 1998, Rush Limbaugh said 'if the Dems retake the Congress, one of the very first things they will begin talking about is the reissue of a new Fairness Doctrine', given the failed 'Hush Rush campaign in 1993.

Since they have retaken Congress, Howard Dean, RFK, and Al Gore all have done exactly that.

How did Rush know? Will you at least admit he was correct in that assumption?

I might add, at the time, he also said it was not so much about promoting 'liberal talk ' but silencing 'conservative talk'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.501:

"Since 1987, the country has experienced a proliferation of highly partisan news outlets that disseminate unbalanced news coverage,"

"Democracy is built on the idea that the views, beliefs and values of an informed citizenry provide the best basis for political decision-making."

"News consumers, particularly those of talk radio, are overwhelmingly exposed to a single point of view. A survey conducted by Democracy Radio this year revealed that 90 percent of all broadcast hours on talk radio are fairly characterized as conservative."

care to comment? was Rush wrong or right?

and, if this is not so much of an important issue, why did Ms. SLAUGHTER , Mr. HOLT, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. FILNER, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. OWENS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. GEORGE MILLER introduce the bill to the Committee on Energy and Commerce?

 

[Radio_Realist]

RR, it memory serves, you have been one of those most adamant about NOT starting new threads for existing topics.

Did you see my name next to any posts in the new, redundant thread?

 

[Al Johnson]

Ok Al. 'Splain this:

Careful. Using Ricky Ricardo dialect in a public forum could get you Imused.

In 1998, Rush Limbaugh said 'if the Dems retake the Congress, one of the very first things they will begin talking about is the reissue of a new Fairness Doctrine', given the failed 'Hush Rush campaign in 1993.

Since they have retaken Congress, Howard Dean, RFK, and Al Gore all have done exactly that.

How did Rush know? Will you at least admit he was correct in that assumption?

Yes, there was a "hush Rush" campaign in the 90s. Politicians are politicians, no matter which side they play for. This is not about whether liberal hosts or conservative hosts dominate the talk radio market. It does not matter, although politicians are deluded enough to think it does. Talk radio does not change people's minds (or their votes). People mostly listen to hosts they agree with. A few listen to hosts they disagree with for the purpose of disagreeing with them. This is pretty much what you quote Rush as saying.

"News consumers, particularly those of talk radio, are overwhelmingly exposed to a single point of view. A survey conducted by Democracy Radio this year revealed that 90 percent of all broadcast hours on talk radio are fairly characterized as conservative."

Whatever the motives of politicians in the 80s for getting rid of the fairness doctrine, or the motives of politicians more recently who want to bring it back, having or not having a fairness doctrine does not matter to the outcome of elections or the business of radio. The fairness doctrine did not stifle political talk radio when there was one. There is no reason to think it would stifle political talk radio now.

If I were the PD of a conservo-talk station and the fairness doctrine passed, here is what I would do:

(1) Have my hosts scream bloody murder. Rousing the rabble is always good for talk numbers.
(2) Tell call screeners to make sure to put on callers who disagree with hosts. Hosts who want to keep working will have to do more/better show prep. Ditto-heads make life too easy on hosts anyway. They just feed the ditto heads talking points and everyone is happy. This is why Rush's show lacks the edge it had in the 90s. I assert callers challenging hosts would make better radio.
(3) I would have hosts be populist rather than party-line conservatives. I'd have them go after government, in general, politicians, in general, and bureaucratic waste and stupidity. Us versus them. Little guy fighting city hall. Mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more. No more carrying water. In this case, the "opposing viewpoint" becomes the government and politicians. If they want fairness, they can come on and hosts and callers beat them up.
(4) I would not hire a liberal host to stick in the schedule.
(5) I would not drop political talk.

If the fairness doctrine were not passed, I do pretty much the same thing. Party line political talk has gotten old and predictable. Now the hosts are harping on immigration trying to show they are not Bush's lap dogs. They better find some additional ways to show their independence or few people will buy it.

Maybe Democratic politicians think they've lost elections because of conservative talk radio. Bull. Democrats lost all by themselves.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Talk radio does not change people's minds (or their votes). People mostly listen to hosts they agree with. A few listen to hosts they disagree with for the purpose of disagreeing with them. This is pretty much what you quote Rush as saying.

That is correct, to a point.

Maybe Democratic politicians think they've lost elections because of conservative talk radio.

They have. You are correct when you state that talk radio doesn't change peoples' minds about their stand on issues or on which candidate they would prefer to see win. But talk radio is a very powerful force at convincing people to actually show up at the polls to cast their votes. Listen to any political analysis program, read any political analysis article, you'll come across many, many references to "voter turnout" as the key to the election. The GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 didn't happen because more people were convinced that the Republicans were the better candidates. They won because more conservative voters were convinced to actually go to the polls instead of sitting the election out.

It's called "energizing the base", and both parties (heck, all parties all over the world where democratic elections are held) realize that convincing people to support their candidates is only a small part of the battle. The really important part is getting the voters to the polls. Political parties don't run car and van pools on election day to make sure their voters get to the polls out of the goodness of their hearts.

Silencing political talk radio would mean that there would be no liberal or conservative cheerleaders like Franken or Limbaugh encouraging the faithful to go to the polls. But since the liberals (Democrats) already have the better grass roots organization for getting their voters to the polls, they'd gladly sacrifice their mostly useless liberal talk hosts if that would also knock out the highly effective conservative talk hosts.

 

[evnlee]

In 1998, Rush Limbaugh said 'if the Dems retake the Congress, one of the very first things they will begin talking about is the reissue of a new Fairness Doctrine', given the failed 'Hush Rush campaign in 1993.

Since they have retaken Congress, Howard Dean, RFK, and Al Gore all have done exactly that.

How did Rush know? Will you at least admit he was correct in that assumption?

Yes, there was a "hush Rush" campaign in the 90s. Politicians are politicians, no matter which side they play for. This is not about whether liberal hosts or conservative hosts dominate the talk radio market. It does not matter, although politicians are deluded enough to think it does. Talk radio does not change people's minds (or their votes). People mostly listen to hosts they agree with. A few listen to hosts they disagree with for the purpose of disagreeing with them. This is pretty much what you quote Rush as saying.

you did not answer my question, Al.

Why not?

Was Rush ......right? It's a 'yes' or 'no'.

If your answer is 'yes', dont you feel foolish asking people why they believe a guy who accurately called this almost a decade ago?

if your answer is 'no'...please explain without 'weasel words'

 

[Al Johnson]

I'm sorry if you did not understand my reply. I will try to make it simple for you.

Yes, Rush was accurate in saying that some Democrats would want to bring back the fairness doctrine. This wasn't hard to guess. The Dems were saying it all along.

I am saying that I don't care. This whole issue is irrelevant. Whether there is or is not a fairness doctrine doesn't matter. I am saying that Rush, other talk show hosts and all politicians are NOT accurate when they predict bringing back the fairness doctrine will have any affect on talk radio (liberal or conservative) or the outcome of any elections. It won't matter. But Rush has rattled your cage about this and you appear unwilling to use your own judgment in looking at this issues. Ditto-heads deal with politics the way fundamentalists deal with religion. And the thought of questioning anything from Rush (like doubting scripture) scares the hell out of them.

It's Rush's job to get you upset, so you keep listening. If he can't find something that matters to upset you, he comes up with something like the fairness doctrine.

 

[evnlee]

Yes, Rush was accurate in saying that some Democrats would want to bring back the fairness doctrine. This wasn't hard to guess. The Dems were saying it all along.

really? The dems were saying it 'all along'?

the original 'Hush Rush' bill was introduced in 1993. Rush made the 'FD' prediction in 1997-98.

If the 'dems' were saying 'all along' that they wanted the 'fairness doctrine' back, then why did Clinton sign the telecommunications act in 1996?

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/U/htmlU/uspolicyt/uspolicyt.htm

the fact is, the dems were NOT saying it all along. They tried in 1993, and failed. After that, we didn't hear about it for awhile.

nice try, though.

 

[Al Johnson]

Irrelevant. Immaterial.

Either what I've written goes over your head.
Or it doesn't support what you've already decided so you ignore it.

I see, however, the Verbal Advantage is right in buying spots in Rush's program. They know who their market is.

If you want the Dems to drop the idea of bringing back the fairness doctrine, start a group called Rights for the Intellectually Disadvantaged. Start claiming that stupid people are not represented in the media and therefore Rush is needed as a form of political special ed to insure all levels of intellectual ability are represented in the political process. They'll probably buy that.

RR, I apologize to you. I had started associating you with Evnlee. I enjoy cross swords with you and although we have disagreed (but not always) your arguments are often thought-out and well-founded. Goes to showe you can teach a parrot to say "To be or not to be" but that doesn't make him Lawrence Olivier.

 

[evnlee]

Irrelevant. Immaterial.

Either what I've written goes over your head.
Or it doesn't support what you've already decided so you ignore it.

I see, however, the Verbal Advantage is right in buying spots in Rush's program. They know who their market is.

If you want the Dems to drop the idea of bringing back the fairness doctrine, start a group called Rights for the Intellectually Disadvantaged. Start claiming that stupid people are not represented in the media and therefore Rush is needed as a form of political special ed to insure all levels of intellectual ability are represented in the political process. They'll probably buy that.

Al, when I come to discuss, I come with links to verify my argument.

Like the link to the bill currently being introduced, as well as the bill Clinton signed into law.

You come to debate with conjecture.

You say 'the dems have been saying all along that they want the fairness doctrine back'.

(Yet, the Dem President signed into law a bill that even 'progressives' agree was not in the best 'public interest')

worse, after you have been proven wrong, then you say 'I dont care. It's irrelevant. I'm smarter then you, so now I will take my ball and go home'.

Perhaps you can show me the bills introduced from 1993-1998 that support your statement above?

If you cannot, then you would have to admit you were incorrect in stating 'the dems wanted the FD back all along'.

game set match. thanks for playing.

 

[Al Johnson]

Wanting and introducing bills are two different things.

What you keep refusing to get, and what you keep changing the subject away from, is this: If the fairness doctrine comes back it will have little or no affect on political talk radio as we know it. What part of this don't you understand? That is the issue. Nothing more.

If you want to get your shorts in a knot about somebody stifling right wing talk, worry about the Rev Al and Media Matters. They are just waiting to pounce on your boy Rush.

 

[evnlee]

Wanting and introducing bills are two different things.

What you keep refusing to get, and what you keep changing the subject away from, is this: If the fairness doctrine comes back it will have little or no affect on political talk radio as we know it. What part of this don't you understand? That is the issue. Nothing more.

ummm, Al? You are making less and less sense.

First you say 'the dems have always wanted the FD back' which we can now assume is incorrect, since you cannot provide any links to verify this speculation.

The reason you 'introduce' bills is because you 'want something'.

The reason the new bill is being submitted ( as I clearly pointed out in Reply #106 on: Yesterday at 01:55:33 pm) is not because Rangel and Kucinich are bored. They want something!

Now you claim that the new FD will 'have little or no effect' on political talk radio. I disagree.

When local stations have to air 3 hours of 'progressive talk' to counter balance Limbaugh, and lose $$ and advertisers, then I believe that many stations owners will just flip the format and dump them both, rather then deal with this headache.

Why not just be honest, and say that's what you guys have had in mind the whole time? Admit it~ you would be plenty happy if Ed Schultz got thrown out with Limbaugh, just as long as you get Limbaugh off the air.

 

[Radio_Realist]

If the fairness doctrine comes back it will have little or no affect on political talk radio as we know it. What part of this don't you understand? That is the issue. Nothing more.

I understand exactly what you are saying. These aren't your exact words, but to paraphrase, you are saying that if a new replica of the old Fairness Doctrine is introduced, identical in every way to the old Fairness Doctrine, then it will have as little impact on political talk radio as the old one had. I disagree about the lack of impact of the old Fairness Doctrine, but that's beside the point.

We're not talking about bringing back the old Fairness Doctrine. We're talking about a new piece of legislation that hasn't been written yet. We're looking at who will be doing the writing, and what their agendas are, and what they have publicly stated as their goals for the new law, and what we're seeing is not the old Fairness Doctrine. We're seeing something that is new and different. We're seeing something that will have a different impact than the old Fairness Doctrine.

No argument that is based on the impact of the old Fairness Doctrine is worth a pitcher of warm spit when applied to the impact of the new Fairness Doctrine.

I'm also curious about why you made absolutely no response to my assertion that talk show hosts like Limbaugh or Franken (back when he was on the air) who "preach to the choir" actually do have an impact on the outcomes of elections by encouraging higher voter turnout. Do I need to post half a dozen links to sites where statements of experts will "prove" my assertion that an important factor in winning elections is encouraging your supporters to actually go to the polls and vote?

Admit it~ you would be plenty happy if Ed Schultz got thrown out with Limbaugh, just as long as you get Limbaugh off the air.

Of course they would! The liberal party has plenty of other means of getting good voter turnout from their base. In Philadelphia and Chicago, even being dead is no impediment to casting one's ballot. But the conservative party depends on people like Limbaugh to energize the base and improve voter turnout.

 

[Al Johnson]

I understand exactly what you are saying.

I figured you would.

We're not talking about bringing back the old Fairness Doctrine. We're talking about a new piece of legislation that hasn't been written yet. We're looking at who will be doing the writing, and what their agendas are, and what they have publicly stated as their goals for the new law, and what we're seeing is not the old Fairness Doctrine. We're seeing something that is new and different. We're seeing something that will have a different impact than the old Fairness Doctrine.

You are right. We don't know what this new fairness doctrine is. The fact that those who have floated the idea refer to it as the "fairness doctrine" suggests it will resemble the old regulations. The goals of the new law? That's not clear either. There has been some speech-making but no specifics and nothing that looks like unanimity. Promote liberal talk? Hush Rush? Nothing is going to happen as long as Bush is around to veto it. Whatever is proposed will have to get a congressional majority. And whatever is proposed will have to have some appearance of fairness in order to pass (and not get struck down in the courts).

Most people want fairness and balance. Notice how Fox News has appropriated the language of the fairness doctrine in their slogan. If the new fairness doctrine is (like the old one) a general statement of principle, then my statement stands that nobody has anything to worry about. Many people here seem to confuse the "fairness doctrine" with the equal time rule and think this is a proposal to bring it back. The equal time rule never went away. It's still in effect. Any attempt to require a liberal show for each conservative show would be completely unenforceable. Those short-hand labels may be OK for radio board discussion but are completely meaningless in a legal context.

I say again, as long as hosts let callers (or guests) disagree with them, they are in the clear under any form of rules with any likelihood of being passed.

Besides, we don't know for sure that people who talking/bitching are actually going to introduce anything. Politicians talk far more than they introduce.

I'm also curious about why you made absolutely no response to my assertion that talk show hosts like Limbaugh or Franken (back when he was on the air) who "preach to the choir" actually do have an impact on the outcomes of elections by encouraging higher voter turnout.

I don't recall seeing this specific point in the thread but I'm happy to respond. Talk radio listeners are a relatively small piece of the electorate. People who listen to talk shows, "the choir," are already likely voters. They are not the ones who need to be gotten out. As I mentioned earlier, talk radio is far most effective in being anti-government and in dealing with single hot-button issues. There are a few instances of local hosts rallying voters against referenda (like Jerry Williams' famous tea-bag stunt). In these cases, hosts galvanize people on volatile individual issues. There is evidence such stunts reach beyond the regular talk show audience through public events and TV and newspaper coverage. They are able to have an impact by reaching non-listeners with a specific message.

In major cities, both Republicans and Democrats practice club house politics and have effective machines.

 

[evnlee]

We don't know what this new fairness doctrine is. The fact that those who have floated the idea refer to it as the "fairness doctrine" suggests it will resemble the old regulations. The goals of the new law? That's not clear either.

sigh. I'll try one more time. we 'do know' what the HR 501 bill says:

http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr501.html

Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act

read section 2 for the 'goals' of the new law.

from opensecrets, http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/bills.asp?billid=H.R+501&congno=109

"News consumers, particularly those of talk radio, are overwhelmingly exposed to a single point of view. A 2004 survey by Democracy Radio revealed that 90 percent of all broadcast hours on talk radio are characterized as conservative. This imbalance results in issues of public importance receiving little or no attention, while others are presented in a manner not conducive to the listeners' receiving the facts and range of opinions necessary to make informed decisions. "

"`(A) to restore fairness in broadcasting;

`(B) to ensure that broadcasters meet their public interest obligations;

`(C) to promote diversity, localism, and competition in American media; and

`(D) to ensure that all radio and television broadcasters--

`(i) are accountable to the local communities they are licensed to serve;

`(ii) offer diverse views on issues of public importance, including local issues; and

`(iii) provide regular opportunities for meaningful public dialogue among listeners, viewers, station personnel, and licensees.