-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Dems push fairness doctrine
- Thread starter raccoonradio
- Start date
A
Al Johnson
Guest
It's even more vague than that.
Here is the info on HR 501 from house.gov. Doesn't say anything about talk radio or fairness.
Here is the info on HR 501 from house.gov. Doesn't say anything about talk radio or fairness.
E
evnlee
Guest
Al Johnson said:
I give up. some people just lack basic reading skills.
Al, follow the links I provide. This bill was introduced in the 109th Congress, not the 110th.
A
Al Johnson
Guest
My reading skills got me an "A" in Civics in the 9th grade, where I learned that an unvoted bill dies at the end of a congress. And, thank you, I prefer to go to sites I consider reliable, such as Thomas.
Rep Louise Slaughter (D-NY) introduced HR 501 in the early weeks of the first session of the last (109th) Congress. Slaughter represents the Buffalo-Rochester region of Western New York. Her district includes two liberal talk stations. She is currently chair of the House Rules committee making her the second most powerful member of the House (in the previous congress, she was ranking Democrat). Her bill was referred to a sub-committee where, like most bills, it died when the 109th congress adjourned. No action was taken. The bill is not currently active and has not been re-introduced, which suggests this legislation is not a priority for the majority party or even Slaughter. As chair of the Rules Committee she has considerable power to determine which bills reach the House floor for a vote.
This now-dead bill was a statement of general principles, resembling the former fairness doctrine. It would have limited the term of broadcast licenses to four years and would allow members of the public to challenge a station's application to renew its license on the grounds of "the applicant's failure to afford reasonable opportunities for presentation of opposing points of view on issues of public importance in its overall programming." Under the terms of this bill, renewal would not have been as automatic as it is now. The bill would have also required stations to "cover issues of importance to their local communities in a fair manner, taking into account the diverse interests and viewpoints in the local community." The only thing new here was a requirement for stations to hold semiannual hearings on the "needs and interests of the community" (not just keep a file).
Coverage of local issues might well have been the most far-reaching aspect of this dead bill. It could have resulted in challenges to stations which are all-syndicated, all-automated and all-voice tracked with no local programming, possibly even with no local news, local talk or local public affairs programming.
The language of this bill would have cut both ways; it would have allowed conservatives to challenge the licenses of public radio stations, liberal talk stations and network-owned television stations on grounds of liberal bias.
Bottom line: This legislation, like the old fairness doctrine, would have had little impact on political talk radio as it operates now. As long as callers and guests with different viewpoints get on the air, a station is in compliance (even if the host disagrees with some points of views and disparages callers and guests who hold them).
I can see why the NAB would not have liked this bill. I don't see what fans of political talk had to be so upset about, except Rush and others have told them they should be upset. And NAB members sign talk show hosts' paychecks.
Personally, I like it. I hope it gets re-introduced with the addition of ownership caps.
E
evnlee
Guest
Al Johnson said:
Al, thank you for at leat admitting you didn't follow my links, and did not read the bill. Whether or not it came from 'Thomas', what I posted was correct.
When I did listen to Err Amerika, almost every show ( with the notable exception of Randi Rhodes ) did not encourage or have 'callers' on to debate. It was rare when that occured, if it happened at all.
One of my biggest beefs with Limbaugh, is after the oxy-cotin scandal, anyone who disagreed with him was a'seminar caller'. The ongoing dittoheads choir and lack of honest debate has made me turn the dial.
I listen to talk radio for the debate. I find very few syndicated N/T hosts that honor it. But, I don't want the Govt involved in rectifying that situation. I want the marketplace to do it.
You seem to feel that's okay. You also seem to feel that the new FD would not have an effect, as the old FD did not. We can agree to disgaree on that~ this argument has been had before, and even 'respected journalists' like Dan Rather have argued the old FD DID have a negative effect.
It still does not change my assertation that Rush accurately predicted that the dems would try to re enact the FD in an attempt to silence him and others like him.
A
Al Johnson
Guest
evnlee said:
I don't think we disagree on this point. As I've said before, I think talk shows would avoid any problem with the fairness doctrine (as originally enacted or as proposed in 2005) by allowing, even encouraging, callers and guests who disagree with the hosts. I agree that this kind of "debate" would make the shows better and more interesting. The constant parade of ditto-heads (on all the shows, ditto-heads left and right) has gotten old. Yes, broadcasters, syndicators and talk show hosts should have been smart enough to do it themselves but they haven't. This wouldn't be the first time the government made broadcasters do something that turns out to be for their own benefit. The new format trends show news/talk is continuing to drop (although personality talk shows some growth). Maybe you and I aren't the only ones getting tired of a constant stream of mega-dittos. And for the record, I reiterate conservative and liberal hosts are all guilty of not only preaching to the choir but of mostly taking calls from the choir.
Don't take my comments about links personally. I've noticed that most of the links posted here are to political blogs which I have found of questionable value. As rule, I don't following links to URLs I don't know, at least not without a quote, paraphrase or summary of what I'm going to find that hooks me (which happens occasionally). I did not recognize for your earlier comment that the link contained the actual text of the 2005 bill (and I would still have double-checked with Thomas because some of these political blogs have been known to take liberties with the facts to make their point). The name "Thomas" comes from the 3rd president who left his personal library to start the Library of Congress but I also like the name for its association with the skeptical apostle, which whom I can identify.
If Dems in the 90s want to silence Rush, it shows how the political mind works. Now with a Republican administration, GOPers want to squelch libtalk. Politicians talk about open debate of issues but few really want it.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
As I've said before, I think talk shows would avoid any problem with the fairness doctrine (as originally enacted or as proposed in 2005) by allowing, even encouraging, callers and guests who disagree with the hosts. I agree that this kind of "debate" would make the shows better and more interesting. The constant parade of ditto-heads (on all the shows, ditto-heads left and right) has gotten old. Yes, broadcasters, syndicators and talk show hosts should have been smart enough to do it themselves but they haven't. This wouldn't be the first time the government made broadcasters do something that turns out to be for their own benefit. The new format trends show news/talk is continuing to drop (although personality talk shows some growth). Maybe you and I aren't the only ones getting tired of a constant stream of mega-dittos. And for the record, I reiterate conservative and liberal hosts are all guilty of not only preaching to the choir but of mostly taking calls from the choir.
Do you realize the can of worms you'd be opening by allowing unelected government bureaucrats to make value judgements on whether or not the amount of time allotted to opposing points of view was sufficient? Or how "opposing" those opposing views have to be? For example, would someone who said that the President should increase the amount of air power used in Iraq in place of ground force action be counted as "for" or "against" the current Iraq war policy? If someone like Jim Quinn has nothing but positive things to say about the President's policy on national defense and the war on terror, but is 180 degrees opposed to the President's policy on illegal immigration have himself balanced by being pro administration on one topic and anti on another? Does that make his program self-balanced?
How would this bureaucratic "civil servant" decide how much was enough opposition to balance? Would it strictly be based on using a stop-watch to count number of minutes or airtime, or would their be a points system to give especially well-stated opinions more weight than poorly stated opinions.
If a talk show screener would never allow any articulate callers speak for the opposition, but would always put any inarticulate dimwit on the air who opposes the host's point of view, how would the bureaucrat deal with that? If Rush Limbaugh only had educated, well-spoken callers who agreed with him, but took several calls per show from obvious lunatic crazies who disagreed with him, so long as the amount of time given to both sets of callers was even, would that be "fair and balanced"?
Can you see that some idealistic ideas might sound good in theory, but flat-out wouldn't work at all in the real world?
Do you realize the can of worms you'd be opening by allowing unelected government bureaucrats to make value judgements on whether or not the amount of time allotted to opposing points of view was sufficient? Or how "opposing" those opposing views have to be? For example, would someone who said that the President should increase the amount of air power used in Iraq in place of ground force action be counted as "for" or "against" the current Iraq war policy? If someone like Jim Quinn has nothing but positive things to say about the President's policy on national defense and the war on terror, but is 180 degrees opposed to the President's policy on illegal immigration have himself balanced by being pro administration on one topic and anti on another? Does that make his program self-balanced?
How would this bureaucratic "civil servant" decide how much was enough opposition to balance? Would it strictly be based on using a stop-watch to count number of minutes or airtime, or would their be a points system to give especially well-stated opinions more weight than poorly stated opinions.
If a talk show screener would never allow any articulate callers speak for the opposition, but would always put any inarticulate dimwit on the air who opposes the host's point of view, how would the bureaucrat deal with that? If Rush Limbaugh only had educated, well-spoken callers who agreed with him, but took several calls per show from obvious lunatic crazies who disagreed with him, so long as the amount of time given to both sets of callers was even, would that be "fair and balanced"?
Can you see that some idealistic ideas might sound good in theory, but flat-out wouldn't work at all in the real world?
E
evnlee
Guest
Radio_Realist said:
RR nails it again.
See, while I might not like the fact that the Rush Limbaugh show has evolved into a 'clusterfudge' of praise, I feel that the marketplace will fix this problem.
Getting the Govt involved in the judgement area of 'fairness' is a pandora's box we need not open. What is 'fair to one' ( forcing affilaites to carry libtalk~even when it was proven to fail and not make $$ ) may be very 'unfair' to another.
You need only look at the first 'Patriot Act' to see that the govt will hide it's true intentions under a ridiculous name, so I automatically distrust any bill labeled 'fairness in broadcasting', and I'm a little taken aback any true 'progressive' would not blanch at the very name of the bill in the first place.
A
Al Johnson
Guest
Sorry, guys. I don't think the scenarios RR envisions qualify as "real world."
If we are talking about the 2005 bill or anything else essentially like the original fairness doctrine, such fears seem ungrounded. Nothing like what RR imagines happened before. Even if he presupposes the new fairness doctrine would end up an expansion of equal time rules, the kind of bureaucratic oversight described has not occurred there either. Maybe some politicians and bureaucrats would like to do what he pictures, but there is not enough money and not enough bureaucrats for the job (unlike the Patriot Act).
The 2005 bill dealt with issues. If Jim Quinn argues a position on immigration, then callers should be allowed to express other views. If he takes a position on Iraq, callers should be allowed to express other views there, too. In this example the issue is not Bush. If Jim Quinn makes Bush an issue, then he should debate callers about that.
The 2005 bill apparently would have made public complaints a basis for not giving an automatic license renewal to a station. Under the old fairness doctrine, this was only invoked a very few times and in cases dealing with station editorials (not talk shows). Stations then provided opportunity for editorial replies but those were almost never "well-stated." And those replies only offered an opportunity for an opposing viewpoint, not all opposing viewpoints. The stations picked the opposing view and the spokespeople. The FCC got involved under the fairness doctrine only when a licensee ran a heavy schedule of his editorial opinions and in addition blacked out any groups or organizations with differing views making replies and from the station's news coverage.
Joe Pyne, Bob Grant, Wally George and others never ran afoul of the fairness doctrine, despite voicing strong or extreme opinions and treating callers who disagreed with them rudely and subjecting them to taunts and insults. However, they did not carry water for an administration or party organization. And they had the guts to take on all comers, not just fawning ditto-heads.
> If Rush Limbaugh only had educated, well-spoken callers who agreed with him....
Now that really doesn't sound like a "real world" situation. LOL Educated people are not who his advertisers target. Besides even ditto-heads don't get to talk much. MegadittosRushthankyoufortakingmycallit'sanhonortotalktoyou and a topic sentence or question are all they get out before Rush pots them down and does his rant. That's the show he does. He has said callers are there only to make the host look good and feed him a straight line. He's gotten lazy. The show has gotten dull. If Rush's show is about influencing elections (like Air America) then, yes, call screeners would look for dummies or clowns to disagree with Rush. If his show is about entertaining an audience, the call screeners will get interesting callers for him to interact with.
Again, fairness is a two-edged sword. Democratic politicians would be bigger idiots than even I give them credit for to pass something Republicans could use to squelch their side of talk radio.
Nobody would be clocking callers or checking their SAT scores. We might have license renewal hearings again in some egregious cases. Some bush league Citizen Kane type would get his wrist slapped, promise to do better and then get his license renewed. I doubt if hearings would be held over Rush or a schedule of the current national right-wing hosts if they allow some debate from callers.
Here is who would be likely to get called in for a hearing under the 2005 bill or the old doctrine: A guy who owned a station not far from me used to run a saturation schedule of anti-abortion spots ("sucks the life out of a mother's womb...abortion is evil!"). He would not allow Planned Parenthood or other pro abortion/pro-choice groups to buy time. He would not allow them to do PSAs to promote events or activities completely unrelated to abortion, or to appear as guests on talk shows. He would not allow any of these groups to be covered or mentioned in local news broadcasts. When both sides held demonstrations, only the anti-abortion/pro-life demonstration could be mentioned on the local news.
The market has had plenty of chances to make corrections. It has not done so. The market has not worked. The old fairness doctrine did.
Evn: I'm glad your distrust of government is consistently applied to both the fairness doctrine and the Patriot Act.
If we are talking about the 2005 bill or anything else essentially like the original fairness doctrine, such fears seem ungrounded. Nothing like what RR imagines happened before. Even if he presupposes the new fairness doctrine would end up an expansion of equal time rules, the kind of bureaucratic oversight described has not occurred there either. Maybe some politicians and bureaucrats would like to do what he pictures, but there is not enough money and not enough bureaucrats for the job (unlike the Patriot Act).
The 2005 bill dealt with issues. If Jim Quinn argues a position on immigration, then callers should be allowed to express other views. If he takes a position on Iraq, callers should be allowed to express other views there, too. In this example the issue is not Bush. If Jim Quinn makes Bush an issue, then he should debate callers about that.
The 2005 bill apparently would have made public complaints a basis for not giving an automatic license renewal to a station. Under the old fairness doctrine, this was only invoked a very few times and in cases dealing with station editorials (not talk shows). Stations then provided opportunity for editorial replies but those were almost never "well-stated." And those replies only offered an opportunity for an opposing viewpoint, not all opposing viewpoints. The stations picked the opposing view and the spokespeople. The FCC got involved under the fairness doctrine only when a licensee ran a heavy schedule of his editorial opinions and in addition blacked out any groups or organizations with differing views making replies and from the station's news coverage.
Joe Pyne, Bob Grant, Wally George and others never ran afoul of the fairness doctrine, despite voicing strong or extreme opinions and treating callers who disagreed with them rudely and subjecting them to taunts and insults. However, they did not carry water for an administration or party organization. And they had the guts to take on all comers, not just fawning ditto-heads.
> If Rush Limbaugh only had educated, well-spoken callers who agreed with him....
Now that really doesn't sound like a "real world" situation. LOL Educated people are not who his advertisers target. Besides even ditto-heads don't get to talk much. MegadittosRushthankyoufortakingmycallit'sanhonortotalktoyou and a topic sentence or question are all they get out before Rush pots them down and does his rant. That's the show he does. He has said callers are there only to make the host look good and feed him a straight line. He's gotten lazy. The show has gotten dull. If Rush's show is about influencing elections (like Air America) then, yes, call screeners would look for dummies or clowns to disagree with Rush. If his show is about entertaining an audience, the call screeners will get interesting callers for him to interact with.
Again, fairness is a two-edged sword. Democratic politicians would be bigger idiots than even I give them credit for to pass something Republicans could use to squelch their side of talk radio.
Nobody would be clocking callers or checking their SAT scores. We might have license renewal hearings again in some egregious cases. Some bush league Citizen Kane type would get his wrist slapped, promise to do better and then get his license renewed. I doubt if hearings would be held over Rush or a schedule of the current national right-wing hosts if they allow some debate from callers.
Here is who would be likely to get called in for a hearing under the 2005 bill or the old doctrine: A guy who owned a station not far from me used to run a saturation schedule of anti-abortion spots ("sucks the life out of a mother's womb...abortion is evil!"). He would not allow Planned Parenthood or other pro abortion/pro-choice groups to buy time. He would not allow them to do PSAs to promote events or activities completely unrelated to abortion, or to appear as guests on talk shows. He would not allow any of these groups to be covered or mentioned in local news broadcasts. When both sides held demonstrations, only the anti-abortion/pro-life demonstration could be mentioned on the local news.
The market has had plenty of chances to make corrections. It has not done so. The market has not worked. The old fairness doctrine did.
Evn: I'm glad your distrust of government is consistently applied to both the fairness doctrine and the Patriot Act.
Ok.....I'll agree to it, if Papers, Internet Blogs and EVERYONE in the public HAS to do it.. See how screwed up we'd be bringing it back as a TRUE politically correct FAIRNESS Doctrine... (And now the rebutal to Dr. Graham's sermon, given by Satan, please stay tuned)....
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
I don't think the scenarios RR envisions qualify as "real world."
Then clearly, you've never inhabited the real world. Or, at least you've never had any dealings with a government bureaucrat.
Then clearly, you've never inhabited the real world. Or, at least you've never had any dealings with a government bureaucrat.
Al Johnson said:
Basically, what you are saying is that radio was better in the good old days. Well, that is simply a matter of opinion, not fact. In other words, you liked station WXYBD when it had a classical music format versus Top 40 programming, for example. I know it makes you feel superior to berate individuals that disagree with your political viewpoints. If someone in the United States wants to listen to liberal or conservative talk, fine, it is the right of freedom and the First amendment. It sounds to me that you want the government to step in the radio business because a station is broadcasting a program or commerical counter to your points of view. Quite honestly, this sounds like the rantings of someone who used to work for the old Soviet paper, Pravda. As it was stated in the 1970's, if you do not like the programming, change the channel, very simple. The same people who did not want the government to interfere with their right to watch sexually explicit programming, are the same people that want the government to censor talk radio, remember the Supreme Court case with the words, "Chilling effect?" On the one hand, certain people favor and advocate for extreme individualism to watch porn on television. Yet, they will not extend those same rights to people that want to listen to talk programs that disagree with their world or the way they view the United States and its institutions. Contrary to your belief, individuals that disagree with your political points of view are not a simple bunch of yahoos waiting to be redeemed by your "enlightened" perspective.
Shark
Radio for the most part WASN'T making money in the 60s and 70s. Many of the larger stations were owned by corporations whose main business was something else (RKO-Tires, Avco-Financial and other services, Nationwide-Insurance, and the list goes on and on). There may have been more jobs, but technology largely took those away (blame Bill Gates). Even if we still had 7/7/7 ownership caps, people would be voicetracking from their basement studios. As far as news an PA requirements, it's so easy to turn off anything you don't want to listen to, it would be pointless.
A
Al Johnson
Guest
The industry was more profitable.
Audience numbers (cume, TSL) were better.
Those are facts. My opinion is those are good things so that would make radio better then.
And, for the record, I never did listen to Classical format radio.
And how does it make you feel to berate people who disagree with you?
Don't worry. Be happy.
50,000 watt WBAP 820 in Fort Worth is typical...Starting at 9 AM, 2 hours and 45 minutes of Mark Davis, 15 minutes of Paul Harvey (part of our American Destiny was giving smallpox infected blankets to Native Americans) then 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh, then 3 hours of Sean Hannity (calls his show the "Stop Hillary Express") then 2 hours of Mark "get off the phone you big dope" Levin.
An 11 hour a day Republican Party infomercial.
Callers with opposing viewpoints are either screened out, mocked, asked "why do you hate America?" or hung up on.
The public airwaves should not be for the exclusive use of the GOP any more than the public roadways, air or water.
An 11 hour a day Republican Party infomercial.
Callers with opposing viewpoints are either screened out, mocked, asked "why do you hate America?" or hung up on.
The public airwaves should not be for the exclusive use of the GOP any more than the public roadways, air or water.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
The industry was more profitable.
Audience numbers (cume, TSL) were better.
Actually, the best times Radio ever had were in the 1920's, 30's, and 40's when radio was the only mass communications and entertainment medium that could be enjoyed in the home. When radio had the airwaves to itself, it was far more profitable and had far more listeners. Then television came along and spoiled things for radio.
No law will ever bring back to radio the success it enjoyed before the internet, iPods, and satellite radio. Individual, none of those three things would have hurt radio very much. Collectively, those three things have made some major changes.
The "good old days", as you might remember them, are gone. They are never coming back. Get over it.
The public airwaves should not be for the exclusive use of the GOP any more than the public roadways, air or water.
Nor should the airwaves that carry CBS, NBC, and ABC television and their left-wing coverage of the Democrat Party. Those of you on the left are quick to cry foul when the "public" airwaves dedicated to radio might carry more conservative than liberal programming (ignoring NPR, which not only carries water for the Democrat Party but also does it with tax payers' money), yet you ignore the exact same thing happening on the same "public" airwaves on the television portion of the spectrum.
Not that any of this is new. It has all been covered in depth in earlier posts in this thread.
Audience numbers (cume, TSL) were better.
Actually, the best times Radio ever had were in the 1920's, 30's, and 40's when radio was the only mass communications and entertainment medium that could be enjoyed in the home. When radio had the airwaves to itself, it was far more profitable and had far more listeners. Then television came along and spoiled things for radio.
No law will ever bring back to radio the success it enjoyed before the internet, iPods, and satellite radio. Individual, none of those three things would have hurt radio very much. Collectively, those three things have made some major changes.
The "good old days", as you might remember them, are gone. They are never coming back. Get over it.
The public airwaves should not be for the exclusive use of the GOP any more than the public roadways, air or water.
Nor should the airwaves that carry CBS, NBC, and ABC television and their left-wing coverage of the Democrat Party. Those of you on the left are quick to cry foul when the "public" airwaves dedicated to radio might carry more conservative than liberal programming (ignoring NPR, which not only carries water for the Democrat Party but also does it with tax payers' money), yet you ignore the exact same thing happening on the same "public" airwaves on the television portion of the spectrum.
Not that any of this is new. It has all been covered in depth in earlier posts in this thread.
- Status