Fairness Doctrine - Take Two

[dfaulkner]

Last Night, at approx 160 replies & 1600 views, the Fairness Doctrine thread that I started on Aug 4th in the words of the Board Editors "got torpedoed by several trolls intent on disruption."

I'm just crazy enough to try this twice, but this time with a few requests.

1. If you suffer from an unrestrainable compunction to call others divisive, derogatory names, this thread is not for you.

2. If you wish to comment on the long running TV variety show Hee Haw, there's a Classic TV Board for that.

3. If you wish to engage in verbal assaults on the ancestry or culture of others, please do that in private exchanges with them.

4. If you wish to slander the political beliefs of others, please do that in private exchanges with them.

That said, anyone wishing to make rational, intelligent comment on the merits or lack therof
regarding The Fairness Doctrine, the floor is open.....

 

[LibertyNT]

The way I see it, is it all comes down to free speech.
Sure it would be great if we could regularly hear both sides of the story.
Does that mean we should make a law forcing people to do so? No.

 

[dfaulkner]

That makes good sense.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The way I see it, is it all comes down to free speech.
Sure it would be great if we could regularly hear both sides of the story.
Does that mean we should make a law forcing people to do so? No.

Broaden your thinking there a little bit. Much of the current day discussion about the Fairness Doctrine assumes that we will end up with the government telling us what we can talk about and what we cannot talk about.

I have already stated that I agree that the Fairness Doctrine as it once existed and anything really close to that WILL NOT WORK and should not be implemented.

What might work is some kind of system where some panel, board or jury can vote up or down: This station has demonstrated they This station IS attempting to serve a variety of needs or this station is NOT serving a variety of needs. If not, licensee should "get off the pot" and let someone else sit down.

People who are not willing to jump through these hoops should buy a McDonalds store or maybe sell used cars or life insurance. We had a regulatory system like that at one time and today's broadcasters will kick and scream if we suggest it, but I don't ever remember broadcasters as a group crying "You are taking away my free speech!". Yes, broadcasters wanted out from under the burden of paperwork and the fear some neighborhood troublemaker would file something that cost them legal fees, but Free Speech violation was not the big wale and cry.

 

[Albert19X]

Broaden your thinking there a little bit. Much of the current day discussion about the Fairness Doctrine assumes that we will end up with the government telling us what we can talk about and what we cannot talk about.

That's a supposition I hear from folks who oppose any form of FD. What I haven't seen is any documentation supporting this supposition. Have there been any formal proposals or policy statements in support of such a throttling of free speech?

 

[bturner]

The only issue I have with a Fairness Doctrine as it existed is it stopped stations from discussing issues at all. Sure, you can name exceptions, but the stations I worked for, except in very select and rare circumstances, did absolutely nothing that might result in a demand for airtime.

The Fairness Doctrine, as it was, is outdated, I think, because there are so many venues available. My gosh, DFW has 72 signals. Must everyone present every side? I think there is a place for all sides, with each 'flavor' of politics having their own station.

There is the question as to how far to take it. If a preacher buys time for his sermon, must other opposing religions get to respond? Even news services have demonstrated bias. Would a station carrying a network newscast be forced to present another bias/side?

I can tell you that the Fairness Doctrine was well hated when in force. It is viewed the same way the Emergency Alert System is viewed. Ever wonder why everyone doesn't activate the EAS when requested? It's the rules requiring a log and audio recording. Make an error and you might be fined. It's easy to avoid it all by not activating but simply reporting the info or just leaving the EAS in Automatic mode and letting your primary announce things. Expect the same avoidance if the Fairness Doctrine is allowed.

I think if the Fairness Doctrine is enacted (defined by what it once was), opinion will vanish from virtually every radio station and likely TV.

Speaking of TV, nobody stated TV should do the same. How would that affect the TV talk shows. There simply would be so much hassle or potential hassle, owners would simply say "we won't go there."

Is there a need for a variety of views? You bet. I long for it. As for me, I wish there was ANY source where you got just the facts and allowed people to build a case for their views...or even a panel. I feel EVERY major source has an agenda and buries some issues to allow their side to stand. Thinking of one talk show, Beyond The Beltway does a pretty fair job of presenting sides between their guests and callers.

One final point, is the Fairness Doctrine what radio listeners really want? It seems listeners seem quite happy as things are. Does anyone have a legit non-biased study or two to demonstrate they want the Fairness Doctrine.

As a broadcaster that has run a few stations in smaller markets where mass appeal programming was offered, we took great strides to offer an accurate portrayal of all groups in our community. There were local issues, however, not national talk. I think most broadcasters feel such an obligation, especially the smaller companies.

 

[gr8oldies]

There's no putting the genie back in the bottle when we have the internet. There's no "my esteemed opponent", we assume the worst motivations of those we disagree. All sides will be running digital recorders and stopwatches on radio and TV, and demanding time to respond to the "outrageous lies" of the other side.

 

[jondavidvox]

BT is on to something....again.

During the 2008 Presidential Election, I stopped contacting both the Clinton Campaign, and the Obama Campaign after 300 calls and emails each. Neither ever responded, all the while complaining about not having access to American Talk Radio.

Thus, if [something called] The Fairness Doctrine is ever enacted again, it would give either side the opportunity to stop the discussion simply by not participating....

The only issue I have with a Fairness Doctrine as it existed is it stopped stations from discussing issues at all.--BTurner

Further...from what I heard of the original proposal, there would be appointed committees set up to review the content of stations for "fairness".

I don't see anything like that ever seeing the light of day, however....

In a non-stop, and yes, draconian money hunt, current Federal Government may indeed seek to force the hand of Radio ownership by forcing payment of huge performance royalties, and simultaneously undercutting other forms of programming....

Therefore, Talk Radio Broadcasters must realize that "...operating in the public interest...", requires in my view, a certain level of self-discipline, and yes, Fairness.

*Invite the other side to the discussion.

*Document all contacts with them.

*Report that they were invited on the air.

These policies broaden the debate, and also make for a better discussion.

Jon-David Wells
The Wells Report

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

O.K. Help me clear the cobwebs out of my memory. After all, it has been 35 to 45 years since we were dealing with the Fairness doctrine head-on.

Am I confusing two distinct policies/regulations or was it all one-ball-of-wax.

Here is my memory: (1) Stations could be required to demonstrate they were making a reasonable effort to give some coverage to issues of public importance. This was very hazy and fuzzy and if a licensee wanted to blow smoke, there was a lot of room for stretch. That is when we learned to run public affairs discussion programs at 6 A.M. on Sunday morning. See Mr. Commissioner... here it is on our program log. We discussed the problems of busing students to achieve school integration on four different occasions. I don't understand what the gentleman from the NAACP is complaining about. (2) The "I want Equal Time" concept was tied to personal attacks. It was not a case of: You ran a program about the need for gun control and I demand equal time to present my view of the 2nd Amendment. At the time of license renewal the 2nd amendment guy could protest my renewal, claiming that I did not do a reasonable effort at balanced community views. But there was no requirement that we put a stop-watch on the gun control people and then call in the 2nd Amendment folks and say: "You get 4 minutes and 21 seconds, just like the other people. If I broadcast a piece which said "The spokesman for the 2nd Amendment in our community is a thief who sells stolen guns and he is afraid gun control is going to shut down his illegal business" then you have a personal attack and the Equal Time rules take command of the situation.

One more wrinkle in the Equal Time rules.... as my dust covered memory cells remember the situation: Elected Public Officials and "Prominent Public Figures" (what ever that meant) were exempt. Private citizens leading a non-front page life were to be protected from Personal Attack. Politicians and highly visible Citizens were fair game. The FCC expected them to be tough-skinned and have the communications resources to defend themselves or counter attack. And simply carrying a news report about someones "attack verbiage" was exempt from the equal time rule.

Maybe in the latter days of the Fairness Doctrine when I had no involvement in it the FCC tightened it down.

Tell me where I have it wrong about the Fairness Doctrine of the past.

Yes it was messy at times. Nobody wanted to spend time writing letters and answering phone calls that resulted when you were a broadcaster on the front-lines of public discussion. But I would propose to you that compared to other industries, when it comes to regulatory complexity, broadcasters have it amazing easy. If you operate a pharmaceutical production facility and an employee reports having seen a mouse in the building.... that company will spend more money meeting the Federal Regs that what a lot of stations are worth. What does it cost an airline company if a report gets out that they have been putting washers in the landing gear backwards? What are the push-ups your local sherrif has to go through if one drunk reports he was physically mistreated by the jailer?

 

[gspitslive]

I am VERY amused by this. Am I the only person who sees the irony in starting off a thread about the Fairness Doctrine with a notice to the "divisive trolls" that they shouldn't be able to say what they wish to say about the issue itself? Sounds more "Mayflower" to me. And you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a real discussion on any issue if you are not prepared to let the "divisive trolls" have their say. The Fairness Doctrine is a failure for that very reason (it cannot be managed because it is purely subjective), there is no tolerance for the "divisive troll" because, for the most part, just wants attention, but you have to allow for that or it defeats the purpose, does it not?

 

[gr8oldies]

Basically the site owners have a right to run these forums as they see fit, and if that means "taking it outside" or deleting the thread, they can do that. The OP is trying, maybe in vain, to have a discussion without the political flame war that usually results.

 

[copydesk2]

Personal insults destroy intelligent conversation. The board operator can either delete the offending posts are take down the whole thread. If the abuse is allowed to continue, it can infect all of the board.

 

[gspitslive]

Ahhhhh... Now you see why the FD is a catastrophic failure. This little example we are playing out here is not about the board operators rights, it is about allowing for voices to be heard and debate. Let's call the board the Federal Government and the "divisive trolls" are the vocal minority. According to Red Lion V. FCC, the Board Operator can take down, omit, delete or edit posts, BUT, according to the journalists (and everyone besides those on the board or the FCC) they take away free speech in the process by acting as the judges of what is relevant as it relates to the conversation.

The FD only works if you let the "divisive trolls" have their say and have the patience to tolerate their ignorance. That is why the FD doesn't and will never work, we have neither.

 

[radiogooroo]

Ahhhhh... Now you see why the FD is a catastrophic failure. This little example we are playing out here is not about the board operators rights, it is about allowing for voices to be heard and debate. Let's call the board the Federal Government and the "divisive trolls" are the vocal minority. According to Red Lion V. FCC, the Board Operator can take down, omit, delete or edit posts, BUT, according to the journalists (and everyone besides those on the board or the FCC) they take away free speech in the process by acting as the judges of what is relevant as it relates to the conversation.

The FD only works if you let the "divisive trolls" have their say and have the patience to tolerate their ignorance. That is why the FD doesn't and will never work, we have neither.

Sure it would work. It would eliminate talk radio listenership, which is the real goal of any politician advocating the return of the FD.

 

[bturner]

I believe the comment about the 'trolls' was that the previous thread became name calling by both sides instead of relating to the subject matter of the topic. I'm all for the 'troll' rhetoric going to a new thread so we can all discuss the Fairness Doctrine not if the right or left side of politics is 'right'.

I see nothing but bad news if the Fairness Doctrine came back. I'd certainly order nothing controversial over the airwaves. Everyone with an opposing view will demand airtime. Imagine listening to your favorite morning show and special interest groups demanding a rebuttal to virtually every bit they put on the air. So much time would be spent on compliance, nobody would bother for long.

Could the music industry be behind the push for bringing the Fairness Doctrine back?

 

[fredcantu]

I'm old enough to believe we had better radio when we had regs like the fairness doctrine. We certainly had a better informed radio audience. Those who say the fairness doctrine chills free speech are probably the same people who are quite content to hear only the side they agree with. That's okay, too, but don't call it balanced. You've crossed from fairness to comfort zone discussions, and the two tend to be mutually exclusive these days.

 

[oldmanradio]

Ahhhhh... Now you see why the FD is a catastrophic failure. This little example we are playing out here is not about the board operators rights, it is about allowing for voices to be heard and debate. Let's call the board the Federal Government and the "divisive trolls" are the vocal minority. According to Red Lion V. FCC, the Board Operator can take down, omit, delete or edit posts, BUT, according to the journalists (and everyone besides those on the board or the FCC) they take away free speech in the process by acting as the judges of what is relevant as it relates to the conversation.

The FD only works if you let the "divisive trolls" have their say and have the patience to tolerate their ignorance. That is why the FD doesn't and will never work, we have neither.

Sure it would work. It would eliminate talk radio listenership, which is the real goal of any politician advocating the return of the FD.

What are you talking about?

Controversial talk radio has been around for 50 years ... at least.

 

[OHTBGH]

in 1997, I was in London at Bush House, then the home of BBC Wrold Service.

I was having a conversation about the difference between UK and US talk radio with the "Progamer" of WS.

He had told me that "Your Rush Limbaugh wouldn't stand a chance here!" And he was right.

Your commitees that you speak of are in the UK and are call OffCOM. They control eveything from License placement to standards and fines and even ads. Plus the Libel laws are more proven on the defendants. While I was there I found this out first hand between a Mp and a reporter in the news.

Talk 1090 was just starting up. It was sooooo bland it was sold and became talksport. LBC does a great job but you have to be mindful of the strict laws and libel placed on the services.

I believe in the marketplace. Things that people like they listen to and support. Those they don't just don't.

Liberal radio has not been great in the marketplace but thanks to Air America, I think its got a bad rap.

Despite they're stupidness on how to run a network, many good liberal talk shows exsist! (Ed Shultz comes to mind.)

I may not agree with their politics but if they do GOOD TALK they can succeed in this marketplace and Ed and others has proven this.

Liberals need to get it out of their heads two things:

1) just because your host has run for political offce DOES NOT make him a talk show candidate.

and...

2) A bunch of comedy writers do not make a basis for a radio network!

Let the marketplace do its thing!

-BGH

 

[bturner]

Excellent comments above.

I'd say I'm more of a conservative than liberal but I can say Ed Schultz is a great talk show host. I heard him before the 'liberal' label as well and he certainly kept me tuned in.

I thought Air America would fail from day 1. My remark was one never showcases a political talk format with comedians rather than entertaining political analysis hosts. It seems Air America was faulty in much of its structure from the top down.

A general comment for conservative and liberal radio: if you have to cut down the other side to make your side look good, then you don't have a product that can stand on its own...it must not be that good. I know there is lots of 'drama' and staging that goes into the presentation but is cutting down the other side really the best way. If you have a good case, you don't need to cut down the other side to build your case.

 

[dfaulkner]

A general comment for conservative and liberal radio: if you have to cut down the other side to make your side look good, then you don't have a product that can stand on its own...it must not be that good. I know there is lots of 'drama' and staging that goes into the presentation but is cutting down the other side really the best way. If you have a good case, you don't need to cut down the other side to build your case.

Amen !