Fairness Doctrine Talk Returns

[DonTheTrucker]

Repealing a bunch of laws and bringing back Fairness Doctrines or ownership caps won't solve radio's problems.

You're operating under a false assumption that people who want to bring back some form of the Fairness Doctrine want to help radio. They don't. They want to squelch dissent, and think that making it more troublesome to air certain types of programming would force broadcasters to just give up and flip formats. Nothing would please these people more than to hear every talk station playing oldies or sports talk or country music.

Of course it's probably not realistic to expect any of this to actually happen, but if someone in a place of power mentions it, we need to have the discussion.

 

[TheBigA]

You're operating under a false assumption that people who want to bring back some form of the Fairness Doctrine want to help radio.

No, I was responding to a specific post. But I agree that any debates about changes in any laws affecting broadcasting will be filled with lots of attempts on the part of special interests on all sides of the spectrum to control content. It's letting the wolves into the hen house. The laws are bad now. If changes were made in this climate, they would be worse, and wouldn't benefit broadcasters or the public.

 

[Talk_Dude]

It can be done easily. All congress has to do is repeal every change to the Communications Act and other laws regulating broadcasting passed in the last 45 years.

Why stop there? Roll everything back to the Communications Act of 1934. Or better yet, the The Radio Act of 1927.

 

[Kelly Watts]

Having run a radio station during the era of the so called "Fairness Doctrine" it WASN'T NOT FAIR. All it did was create yet another headache for small broadcasters dealin with every "NUT JOB" that had an opposing opinion. Just think of it, the FD could even apply to such things as let's say the weather. Ok so this is maybe a bit far fetched, but every disagreement between what was on the air and some splinter group wound up costing the stations time and money. All this amounts to is a push by the Left (Think George Sorros B.H.O and his cronies) to silence the Conservative Media Outlets.

 

[MattParker]

It can be done easily. All congress has to do is repeal every change to the Communications Act and other laws regulating broadcasting passed in the last 45 years.

Why stop there? Roll everything back to the Communications Act of 1934. Or better yet, the The Radio Act of 1927.

Well radio was at its peak for audiences and profitability in the late 60s and the regulations stuck the best balance. Besides, I'd have thought you'd like the idea of "rolling back."

 

[TheBigA]

Well radio was at its peak for audiences and profitability in the late 60s and the regulations stuck the best balance.

Sure, but there were 4000 fewer radio stations, no internet, no cell phones, no cable, and music was way less splintered. But hey, if you can change all those things, you might make radio profitable.

 

[Talk_Dude]

It can be done easily. All congress has to do is repeal every change to the Communications Act and other laws regulating broadcasting passed in the last 45 years.

Why stop there? Roll everything back to the Communications Act of 1934. Or better yet, the The Radio Act of 1927.

Well radio was at its peak for audiences and profitability in the late 60s and the regulations stuck the best balance. Besides, I'd have thought you'd like the idea of "rolling back."

I do. I only noted that you didn't roll back far enough.

 

[Ultimajock]

free speech on the radio.

...what a concept. Ought to try it someday, there's damned little of it nowadays...

 

[Talk_Dude]

free speech on the radio.

...what a concept. Ought to try it someday, there's damned little of it nowadays...

Just as "freedom of the press" only applies to people who can afford ink, paper, and a printing press, freedom of speech on the radio only applies to people who can afford transmitters, antennas, studios, and all the other related gear.

You want to speak freely? Go ahead. Speak. You want people to hear you speak? That's another story.

Right now, you can say pretty much anything you want to say on the radio, so long as you own a radio station.

 

[quadraphonic]

Don't forget Congress is still working toward Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality and the New Fairness Doctrine. A formidable combination.

 

[TheBigA]

Don't forget Congress is still working toward Net Neutrality.

Which Congress? The one that was just elected isn't very hot on the subject. The biggest supporters, like Boucher, were defeated in November. I'd say with the current mood in Congress, both net neutrality AND fairness doctrine are DOA.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Here in Vegas a talk station went oldies and rating are up. In fact, the first talk Station to show up in the ratings here in the Vegas market comes in about 14th, after a bunch of FM music stations.

But...

Vegas has never, ever been a good market for traditional talk radio.

The only significant talk station in the market for decades was the old KDWN, which had a positively weird lineup (it's the station Art Bell started in talk radio wise). It is nothing like today's Beasley owned KDWN.

KNXT is a traditional news/talker now on FM, but it's fairly new.

Vegas is not really the kind of market where talk radio can have success. The city is entertainment oriented, and although it has grown somewhat (well, until the recent real estate bust), there's not much sense of community among these newcomers.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Don't forget Congress is still working toward Net Neutrality.

Which Congress? The one that was just elected isn't very hot on the subject. The biggest supporters, like Boucher, were defeated in November. I'd say with the current mood in Congress, both net neutrality AND fairness doctrine are DOA.

The biggest supporters are the folks with permanent jobs in the FCC who hold jobs identified with codes like GS-10, GS-11, and GS-12, on up to GS-15. Elected officials come and go. The Civil Service goes on and on and on and on. When elected officials need advice on what a bureaucracy should do, they go to the bureaucrats. Do you honestly think the bureaucrats in the FCC aren't pushing for anything that will make their jobs more secure and that would create opportunities for promotion and advancement?

 

[TheBigA]

The biggest supporters are the folks with permanent jobs in the FCC who hold jobs identified with codes like GS-10, GS-11, and GS-12, on up to GS-15.

Well the FCC just released its proposals for net neutrality, but that wasn't what I was responded to. The previous poster seemed to think there was some impending Congressional action, and I don't see anything like that on the horizon. If anything, the current Congress might slap the hands of the FCC and force them to withdraw their proposal.

 

[OhioMediaWatch]

Er...KXNT. Always make that mistake about the Vegas news/talker.

 

[quadraphonic]

The biggest supporters are the folks with permanent jobs in the FCC who hold jobs identified with codes like GS-10, GS-11, and GS-12, on up to GS-15.

Well the FCC just released its proposals for net neutrality, but that wasn't what I was responded to. The previous poster seemed to think there was some impending Congressional action, and I don't see anything like that on the horizon. If anything, the current Congress might slap the hands of the FCC and force them to withdraw their proposal.

Dear God, BigA, I said "Congress" I meant "the government complex."
Sorry to have not parsed my words correctly man.
Thankfully I had you there to catch my fall.

 

[TheBigA]

I said "Congress" I meant "the government complex."

Is that what Eisenhower was talking about?

As I said, while the FCC came out with their net neutrality proposal last month, the reaction was negative from both parties in Congress. The Democrats feel it's too generous to telecoms, while the Republicans feel the FCC overstepped their bounds. In either case, "the government complex" isn't very unified on exactly what they want here, and it's all mired in the usual squabbling. So my point is that you shouldn't expect much here. But expect even less with the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[DonTheTrucker]

Congress specifically told the FCC not to stick its nose into the Internet re: the "net neutrality" proposal, and was soundly ignored. The new Congress is even less likely to want such a proposal, but it doesn't matter. This incarnation of the FCC will just do what it wants anyway.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Congress specifically told the FCC not to stick its nose into the Internet re: the "net neutrality" proposal, and was soundly ignored. The new Congress is even less likely to want such a proposal, but it doesn't matter. This incarnation of the FCC will just do what it wants anyway.

You make it sound like the permanent bureaucrats who actually run the government acting on their own counter to what elected officials tell them is something new and unusual.

The bureaucrats run the government. It's been like that for over 100 years.

 

[MattParker]

Now some of you are opposed to net neutrality?!?

You complain about the government but its OK for some phone or cable company to censor your Internet access or limit your use of the Internet. Don't talk about the "free market." Most of the independent Internet access providers are long gone. Cable companies and Phone companies control the "last mile" and they used that to get control of the other miles.