Fairness Doctrine - Take Two

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

What are you talking about?

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

Let me propose to you that what we have that is creating chaos in the discussion of Talk Radio is a lack of agreed-up definitions of some of your terminology.

Yes, talk radio has been around for 50 years or more. (I did such a show just over 40 year ago.) We at times were controversial for our times... but what we did back then was (hang on, this is going to be politically incorrect and offensive ;D ) what we did back then was about as disruptive to society as "the old maids knitting and quilting group in the Congregational Church basement".

Nothing we were doing back then, not even the Carl McIntrye's and his ilk, had any traction to compare with Talk Radio as we have it today.

Having said that. I have trouble sorting out my nerve root endings. I have trouble knowing if I have a dislike for today's Talk Radio because it upsets my old-fashioned mental processes and memories, or because it is fundamentally flawed and immoral as practiced today. That seems to sum up all the arguing that is going on today.

I think the answer is somewhere between those two extreme positions.

 

[Tom Wells]

I DO recall one really good example of today's style of talk radio that existed back in the 1970s.

In my mind this show was the original model for the EIB "network", and sounded just Mr Limbaugh does now...

On WLTH 1370, Gary Indiana, and then after moving to WLNR 106.1? Lansing, Ill, Warren Frieburg
along with his gf and later wife, Libby Collins, had pretty much a shoutfest with really divisive opinionated callers.

Warren was the super-conservative who (sorry if this is blunt) was incensed about blacks "ruining" Gary, In.
This was the foundation for his popularity base, as there was no shortage of white folk who felt the same way.
However they DID have to permit those who felt differently to have their say.
Warren always had the last word, of course, just as Rush always gets the last word.
This was great for ratings, and certainly collected quite a "choir" which he preached to every weekday.
It was still better than what we have now, as he had to sit and fume quietly while opposing viewpoints
made their case.

It bacame so divisive that WLNR, which sat alongside a major expressway, had to put STEEL PLATES over the windows which faced the expressway.

 

[gr8oldies]

If the community being "served" won't listen to that type of programming, no "service" is being done.

 

[bturner]

Doesn't anybody understand that EVERYTHING a radio station does is NOT programming that comes from 'ascertaining the community's needs'? This is only a tiny percentage...a percentage of a percent and usually buried at 6am Sunday mornings because people mostly don't want to listen.

Does anybody understand that ascertainment is on LOCAL ISSUES, not national topics, although there are issues common to all areas of the country such as 'drunk driving', 'drug use', etc., etc.

If we are applying the concept of "Equal Time" we are misunderstanding the concept. This is for Politicians running for office and relates to forums and debates offered free to all candidates.

Does anyone understand these talk shows are not designed for free speech, but ENTERTAINMENT. If you think any nationally syndicated talk show like the ones criticized is anything but entertainment, designed to produce large numbers of listenrers, you are simply being duped and are evidence they have crafted their show in such a way that even their opponents are confused as to the show's purpose.

Have you bothered to analyze the 'liberal' and 'conservative' talkers? They BOTH follow the same formula.

Maybe we can extend this to the forecast! The National Weather Service says there's a 30% chance of rain in the forecast. I don't think it will rain. I can't get any station to let me say I think the forecast is wrong. If only stations cared about serving the community, my opinion could be on the air.

 

[ropertex]

The Fairness Doctrine, which is often confused with "Equal Time" rules, required no recordkeeping, specifically banned the government from controlling content or censoring, and relied on the station to make the case they they are "serving the public" in a "well rounded" way. A station's fairness should be judged on overall programming, not on individual programs (FCC 6th Annual Report, 1940)

FCC Commissioner Webster (1949) stated that "there can be no mechanical formula of test which can be prescribed to ensure essential "fairness." All a licensee has to do is make a sincere and reasonable effort."

The biggest fear was that the airwaves, owned by the public (as it still the case today) , would be used for politically partisan purposes.

Sean Hannity's new bumper is "The Stop Obama-Pelosi-Reid Express...."





Some material from "The Fairness Doctrine and the Media by Steven J. Simmons, 1978

 

[dfaulkner]

The Fairness Doctrine, which is often confused with "Equal Time" rules, required no recordkeeping, specifically banned the government from controlling content or censoring, and relied on the station to make the case they they are "serving the public" in a "well rounded" way. A station's fairness should be judged on overall programming, not on individual programs (FCC 6th Annual Report, 1940)

FCC Commissioner Webster (1949) stated that "there can be no mechanical formula of test which can be prescribed to ensure essential "fairness." All a licensee has to do is make a sincere and reasonable effort."

The biggest fear was that the airwaves, owned by the public (as it still the case today) , would be used for politically partisan purposes.

Sean Hannity's new bumper is "The Stop Obama-Pelosi-Reid Express...."





Some material from "The Fairness Doctrine and the Media by Steven J. Simmons, 1978

Good information. One of my reasons for starting this thread was thinking that I used to hear it said that the airwaves belonged to the public & that they were entrusted to broadcasters to serve the public interest, public good, etc.