Fairness Doctrine: Never Thought I'd Agree

[jerry367]

I have always believed that there should be no meddling with talkradio programming. After all, it's just talkradio. It's just entertainment. Who cares whether one side gets a bit of an edge in time. Trying to seek a perfect balance is crazy.

That was then, this is now.

If there wasn't such a disparity between hardcore, unapologetic and unabashed conservaitve rancor and, well, the rest of opinions that exist, it wouldn't be an issue. However, when you have political leaders on the right so afraid of being taken to task by talkradio, that they not only adopt and stick to hard right ideologies, but they go so far as to apologize to a host for criticizing them, it's gone too far. It is now affecting public policy, and not in a positive way.

And don't give me this nonsense about "let the market decide". Fact is, we've let profit-driven motiviations rule the roost in numerous arenas, and look where that got us. Considering it's the PUBLIC AIRWAVES that are being used in the right's propaganda campaign, we do in fact have the right to say "Make a profit, but DO NOT make it by throwing all fact and reason to the wind and by poisioning national discourse with lies and misinformation".

Think about it: 95% of talk is a conservative propaganda machine. And don't tell me "all the rest of the MSM is the other extreme" because that's simply not true.

When you have leaders on the right AFRAID to speak up, it can and will continue to have a chilling effect on the concept of checks and balances in this society. Conservative politicians are painted into a corner now.

Bring back the fairness doctrine. It's the ONLY way many people will have a chance at understanding the WHOLE issue, not just ONE SIDE.

 

[johnbasalla]

Instituting a Government mandated "Fairness Doctrine" will do nothing but have a chilling effect on free speech. I pass.

Also, I think you're giving all of the conservative commentators more credit then they deserve vis-a-vis influencing public policy. Conservative talk radio has been the leading form of talk radio for many years, yet look who was elected President by the American people. Don't fall into the ego-trap that these talkers want you to fall into. Most of them will tell us how influential they are, how many listeners they have ... yadda yadda yadda. It's part ego and part schtick.
I'm not saying that they influence no one, but given the fact that many of them have been breathlessly warning everyone about the leftist-socialist disaster that the health care bill may be, and it passed anyway, is good proof that there is no need to clamp down on freedom of speech. Now that would definitely be a disaster.

 

[jerry367]

...maybe I forgot to also mention that I'd like a little more variety in talkradio, vs. all these different shades of the same freakin' color.

B-O-R-I-N-G.

Anyone who can listen to a steady diet of talkradio these days is not someone you wanna be stranded in an elevator with for a few hours.

 

[mescutia]

...maybe I forgot to also mention that I'd like a little more variety in talkradio, vs. all these different shades of the same freakin' color.

B-O-R-I-N-G.

That's why I love podcasts. The variety of shows I can listen to is fantastic. ;D

I haven't listen to political talk radio in ages.

 

[FTL_Ian]

Abolishing the FCC is the only way to have truly diverse views on the air. Of course the power-seekers in DC will never suggest such a thing.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Abolishing the FCC is the only way to have truly diverse views on the air.

Do you really think the audio airwaves would function totally unregulated. Suppose I went to a market and bought a station. I want to double it's power. So what is the procedure if we abolish the FCC? I just buy the new transmitter, install it and turn it on? No permits? If another station 93 miles away finds their local coverage has been badly damaged by my power increase, can they go buy a transmitter four times as powerful, install it and turn it on?

Suppose I go to another market and try to buy another station and nobody wants to sell. Can I tune around the dial until I find the quietest place there, order out a transmitter and antenna, install them and turn them on? What ever power I want. What ever frequency I want.

Suppose I go to another market and I buy every station in town. Then I send my sales people out with a few new rules: We ONLY sell ads to General Motors and Ford dealers. We consider all other brands, particularly imports to be illegitimate, and say so in our dealer ads for the domestic brands. We also only sell political ads to Conservative candidates. Being Republican in not acceptable. Must be conservative to the point of getting the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" from the local Tea Party Council. Our news department will be instructed to never broadcast a story that indicates that the Democratic Party even exists.

Of course someone else could buy all the stations in the next town over and they do the reverse. Toyota and Honda reign supreme. Only Liberals can buy political ads. Newscasts would NEVER acknowledge that Republicans even exist.

Is that really the nation you want to live in?

Wait til my stations hire a morning man and team that makes Howard Stern blush!

 

[johnbasalla]

Great Radio Cowboy is greatly right. Anarchy is not the answer.

 

[jerry367]

Under the no-FCC scenario, you could have stations with names like:

F-105.

92MOFO

K-T1T

Hey, call letters aren't even needed now!

92F@CK

C@NT-100

C@CK-103

BJ-105 (why does that actully sound familiar?)

SCAT-101 (Home of the Cleveland Steamer)

and so on.

 

[Tom Wells]

Abolishing the FCC is the only way to have truly diverse views on the air. Of course the power-seekers in DC will never suggest such a thing.

Setting aside all the very real arguments about the resulting rf anarchy, which are true, FTL_ Ian makes a very true statement.

On one end of the scale would be one single source for media info, with zero diversity.

The other end is ....well, Italy for instance who DID abolish their rf management agency, and the FM dial's a mess.
But at that end of the scale is the maximum diversity.

As spectrum is a limited resource, the FCC was commissioned to develop and maintain the most useful allocation.
We find ourselves at point along that scale with little diversity, since radio is a commercial business, and must cater to the least common denominator.

I miss the days where even commentators struggled to moderate their own views, and offered insights to convince and convert others,
rather than bludgeon their opponents with vitriol. We heard more intelligent discourse when we at least MADE AN EFFORT to be civil
and FAIR because there was a rule about it. Even if we were pretending, it kept things civil and the process of thought could continue
better without inflammatory comments from either side of any issue.

I don't care who does or doesn't like a fairness doctrine at any given moment, but I do worry that we've lost the ability to craft such a rule,
as our society still worships and rewards many modes of destructive behavior ( actors and athletes come to mind).

Likewise, our discourse and "presentation of positioning" has become as crass and subtle as a sledgehammer.

If someone can figure out how to make it "cool" to overcome human nature (of being lazy in thought), we won't need a fairness doctrine.
Instead, we award prizes to the bully who can kick beach sand the farthest.

We don't feel we have to be civil or or concilitory to anyone, we're RIGHT, after all.

 

[FTL_Ian]

You already have courts - they can enforce property disputes. The FCC is extraneous. Even in a no-government situation you'd still have industry standard behaviour and arbitration and reputation to solve disputes.

The idea that you need one central, violent monopoly to ensure transmitter operators respect one another is pretty ludicrous. Even now it takes them in some cases years to shut down pirate/community radio stations. Most people operating transmitters understand it's a bad idea to step on their radio neighbors.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

You already have courts - they can enforce property disputes.

Ah, my friend Ian..... I perceive that you are a theoretician, not a hands-on practitioner of rolling up your sleeves and making community work.

Courts indeed can hear property disputes and determine which party is following the LAW and which party is acting contrary to LAW.

The FCC is charged with enforcing BAD LAW. Wipe out the FCC and you will have courts charged with enforcing BAD LAW.

The FCC is NOT the problem you are trying to deal with, hide from, do away with. We are on the edge of losing the ability in this country to sit down in a legislature and make law that is reasonable. Once Congress writes and passes law that can function in the marketplace with some credibility, it doesn't matter whether the FCC, the courts, the WPA or Rotary International is assigned the task of dealing with disputes.

And who is a major contributor to this national situation where the men and the women of the Congress cannot function in a productive manner? The wackos of the Right and the Left feel empowered and are guided by wacko broadcasters. As the guys say in the engineering shop out behind the transmitter room: "We have a self-generating positive feed-back loop that is out of control."

Whether it is Miss Manners, Emily Post, The AP Stylebook, or a national association of rational talkers, or even the FCC.... someone has to say to broadcasters: THESE are the laws and rules. Operate with a corrupted view of THESE LAWS and you will be hammered!

 

[FTL_Ian]

The FCC is charged with enforcing BAD LAW. Wipe out the FCC and you will have courts charged with enforcing BAD LAW.

As I undestand it, the FCC enforces regulations written by FCC bureaucrats. Plus, wiping them out would make the issue local, meaning it will be far more manageable than dealing with some far off group of bureaucrats, who really just want to take your money.

The FCC is NOT the problem you are trying to deal with, hide from, do away with. We are on the edge of losing the ability in this country to sit down in a legislature and make law that is reasonable. Once Congress writes and passes law that can function in the marketplace with some credibility, it doesn't matter whether the FCC, the courts, the WPA or Rotary International is assigned the task of dealing with disputes.

I agree the FCC isn't the real problem. The real problem is men and women using aggressive force against peaceful people, but that's not really the scope of this discussion. The FCC is just an outgrowth of American's acceptance of institutionalized aggression. As to the rest of that paragraph, it's meaningless to me. Congress and the federal government should either be abolished, ignored, or seceded from. Only two laws are necessary - 1. Do no harm. 2. Honor your agreements. You don't need strangers in some far off place to tell you those though, they are inherent natural law that are ascertained from the nature of human interaction.

And who is a major contributor to this national situation where the men and the women of the Congress cannot function in a productive manner? The wackos of the Right and the Left feel empowered and are guided by wacko broadcasters. As the guys say in the engineering shop out behind the transmitter room: "We have a self-generating positive feed-back loop that is out of control."

Congress can only produce statutes - they cannot actually be productive, because they aren't producing anything of value. Their "product" is aggression. It destroys value. That said, I agree that the left-right paradigm is false and divisive.

Whether it is Miss Manners, Emily Post, The AP Stylebook, or a national association of rational talkers, or even the FCC.... someone has to say to broadcasters: THESE are the laws and rules. Operate with a corrupted view of THESE LAWS and you will be hammered!

If by hammered you mean ostracized and their reputation ruined, I agree. If by hammered you mean their property destroyed or them being caged, I disagree.

 

[johnbasalla]

Let us not forget that some of the "blame", if you want to call it that, resides with the listeners. They empower radio talk show hosts simply by listening and giving them high ratings. People like the high energy hyperventilating, so Rush Limbaugh beats Dennis Prager who are both in the same timeslot in most markets. I wish that more people would listen to Dennis Prager, but wouldn't support for on mili-second any disgusting big government dictatorial mandate to silence Mr. Limbaugh, or anyone currently on radio. Freedom and Liberty are much too important for that, which includes everyone's liberty to listen or not as they so choose.

 

[Holland Cooke]

Bet against re-instatement.

The president and FCC chairman have both, repeatedly, stated that The Fairness Doctrine won't be back.

If anything, regulation is swerving in-the-opposite-direction, i.e., relaxing broadcast/newspaper cross-ownership.

Still, Talk Radio seems to BEG for content regulation:
http://www.ntsmediaonline.com/?p=16443

Talk Radio take note: people are lining-up for iPads.
Let's serve-up more than just the-same-thing-on-every-channel, or we'll marginalize ourselves.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

 

[b344077]

I believe that some kind of process which provides a sense of talk radio political balance should be considered. I happen to belong to retiree message board. The conservative comments highly reflect the conservative radio talking points. The conservative group will not accept differing views. Lately, comments have broken down to out and out threats. Such as "I know where you live". Both sides seem to have drawn a line in the sand and there is little room for middle ground. Please remembers this is NOT a political board but more and more, participants are being defined by their political views.

 

[quadraphonic]

Please remembers this is NOT a political board but more and more, participants are being defined by their political views.

It's hardly only the conservative side doing that.
If you disagree with liberal ideas lately, you're "racist" "sexist" "homophobic" "against progress" "neanderthal" or any one of a number of other politically-defined pigeonholes. I have also seen "atheist" and "don't want poor people to get health care" attached to people who don't agree with the whole health care shebang they passed.

And both sides tend to wear their political views on their sleeves, or across their hearts, or wherever, like a shield to keep them from actually thinking things through.

It's how politics altogether is running, not just conservative politics. They have been setting us up into camps for years, because identifying us as groups makes it easier for them to campaign to us [the "us vs. them" mentality run amok].

 

[Tom Wells]

I'd extend the same invitation to anyone that I did to Mr Limbaugh:

If you would be truly impartial, vote for the person you KNOW will lose, based on principles.

The truly convinced ( and electable) candidate is hopelessly compromised.

Then you can critique the winner on merits, almost every time, because we elect leaders on surface values, not core values.

Let us not be "blinded" by the choices we have made, but learn from them with an open mind.
Damn, there's that human nature element again. :-[

I want to be both conservative AND liberal, yet not sit on a fence. There IS a solution to our misunderstandings.
It won't come from "enjoying the abscensce of a fairness doctrine" even while that status profits radio (marginally).