Fairness doctrine

[Radio_Realist]

Now when someone calls in with a viewpoint from another planet, give it airtime.

Will you also call for the government to provide free transmitters and station equipment for this purpose? Or will broadcasters be compelled to chase away all their listeners, advertisers, and revenue in order to allow the tin-foil hat crowd equal access to the airwaves, as well as bear the financial burden of owning and maintaining the transmitter equipment?

America has freedom of the press, but to exercise it, one has to purchase own's own printing press, ink, and paper. No printer is required to give anyone free access to their supplies and equipment. What rights should a broadcaster have to protect and preserve his investment in radio transmitting equipment?

 

[evnlee]

Here's what's going to happen. There will no re-introduction of the FD. Bush is still President (unless he has a nervous breakdown and resigns) However, the Democratic Congress will do enough jaw-boning to get the radio industry all worked up. What will happen is that Clear Channel and the other large radio groups will start rolling out liberal talk radio in many of the top 200 markets. Mostly struggling AMs. Their hope will be that this will keep the FCC from reintroducing regulations that will reimpose the FD.

the premise here is that the Corporations that currently own most of the nations stations after deregulation will voluntarily put on liberal talk programming that does not generate revenue in compliance with the new Congress to avoid a 'new FD'.

That premise is incorrect, and let me explain how:

These corporations still have to answer to stockholders, and they will not allow thier investment to take a hit rather then go down fighting. It's not thier way, and everyone knows it. Look at the top 2, Clear Channel and Cumulus ( I have worked for both ).

The smart thing to do is offer up some struggling a.m.'s to L/P Talk, take the hit, and keep yor big dogs on the air. But these guys aren't known for doing the 'smart thing'. If they think putting on Franken in Fargo is going to cost them 35$, they will spend 100$ to prevent that. They will hire high priced lawyers, and pour millions into lobbying. With the 2008 election looming, Pelosi and co. would be a complete idiots to allow all that money to go to thier competitors. With the regain of Congress, they have the opportunity to shakedown CC and Cumulus for $$$$$, and don't you believe for a second they wont jump at the chance.

There may be C Span hearings ( as was the case with the tobacco lobby ) to ensure they play ball. The corporate interests will pay off any real chance of a new FD, without rolling out new liberal talk in all of the top 200 markets. They may offer up some of the 'blue-er' ergions, but they would do that anyways.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"These corporations still have to answer to stockholders, and they will not allow thier investment to take a hit rather then go down fighting."

I tend to agree. However, the party taking over in Congress would benefit if only the conservative talk shows were to go away, with no liberal talk taking their place. It would suit the desires and needs of the party that just took over to have all news/talk radio disappear, and to be replaced with music or sports/talk programming.

And, since the big broadcasting corporations could satisfy their stockholders just as easily with profits from music format or sports talk format radio as they do with profits from news/talk format radio, it might not be that farfetched for the new majority party in Congress to push for a carrot and stick approach, with the carrot being looser regulations for Howard Stern-type bawdy talk radio against the stick of tougher times for political talk like Limbaugh.

 

[Tom Wells]

America has freedom of the press, but to exercise it, one has to purchase own's own printing press, ink, and paper. No printer is required to give anyone free access to their supplies and equipment. What rights should a broadcaster have to protect and preserve his investment in radio transmitting equipment?

I am currently leaning on the color desk of a printing press that is being installed in Houston.
There is no scarcity of this resource, and printers will take anyone's money to print almost anything.
Then you can distribute your product any way and anywhere you can.
Do you see the difference with radio?
Just as in regulated monopolies like publilc utilities, there are service OBLIGATIONS that come with the privelige of the license.
It is easy for the owners to take the position that they are "owners". They are NOT. They are trustees, in fact, of the public airwaves.
Yes, you have to let the idiot with the tinfoil hat have his say. We can all roll our eyes while they're speaking, and add this crazy opinion to our sum-knowledge of the public opinion. And some of the time, we will be shocked to discover that what we thought was just a crackpot is someone with a real, valid opinion.


Perhaps we should follow the example of Italy, which abolished their equivalent of the FCC back in the early 90's, deciding government had no business regulating radio or TV.
If you are not being heard, or interfered with, just get yourself a bigger transmitter.
I don't know how well it's working these days, but back in '93, the FM was crammedfullofstationsallmusclingforroom.
Not much was very usable, due to the lack of coordination/regulation.

I doubt that would work here, so how do you propose to ensure that majority rule respects minority opinion?
Or do you propose the minority opinion be damned?
Remember, you opinion may be in the minority one day, so answer carefully.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Do you see the difference with radio?

Yes, but I see that the difference isn't so profound as to justify regulations that would force broadcasters to give away so much airtime to the tinfoil hat crowd that they would go out of business.

Perhaps we should follow the example of Italy, which abolished their equivalent of the FCC back in the early 90's, deciding government had no business regulating radio or TV.

That sounds like an excellent idea.

Or do you propose the minority opinion be damned?

Depends on if you're talking about a significant minority, or a teeny-tiny minority, like the tin foil hat crowd. But my basic take on the subject is that it doesn't matter nearly as much what is sent out from transmitters as what it received on radios. Giving the tin foil hat airtime to broadcast their whacky views that no one is going to tune in and receive other than other tin foil hat wearers is a waste of resources.

Ultra minority opinions are like trees falling in a forest. If there's no one there to hear them, does it matter if they make a sound or not?

 

[Tom Wells]

Deciding who is the minority vs the ultra-minority was the tough work involved in the old fairness doctrine.
That job was left up to individual stations' management, and hard sometimes to get the air personalities to follow accurately the directives.
It was easier to find other programming choices to fulfill public service requirements, than to decide which
tinfoil hat guy to provide airtime to.

So, how could we do a better job with a new FD?

A politeness doctrine might really be what we need.
That is, after the occasional nutjob has their say on the air, a host or commentator might politely respond with
the common sense wisdom, the accurate rebuttal, or the factual reasons to counterpoint the opinion.
If necessary, inflammatory speech could still be squashed by the usual air dump button.
But derisive statements, name calling, or blatant condescencion (sp?) are,
or ought to be verboten. Such attitudes only galvanize the opposition, and beget more crazies.
A few crackpots a day can make for memorable radio, and we can all laugh privately.

I doubt I will like any new fairness doctrine crafted by this new bunch in office.

 

[Radio_Realist]

A politeness doctrine might really be what we need.

Let me guess. You work on a "public" station, kept on the air through pledge drives and donations, right? Because that's the only way a station could possibly follow the rules that you're describing and remain operational.

 

[Tom Wells]

Ummm, no. I do not work at a "public station". I was headed onto the radio industry expressway on-ramp in 1980, and had the advantage of several instructors with many decades of experience already, who advised us of this particular future, and I swerved off into electronic
engineering of "other types". I would still rather be in radio, but don't call me a wannabe, cuz I don' wanna. I could see changes I did not care for even back into the 70's. IF there were a decent living to be made for engineers in the industry, IF the art of radio hadn't been completely squashed by accountants and MBAs, I would be there now. But I need not tell you what you already know. I listen and watch the radio industry as I would a childhood friend who has become involved in a bad gambling or drug habit, losing all the advantages they once enjoyed, and yet not knowing how to help, as they sink ever lower. I have had the pleasure of deciding where to settle, changed jobs only twice since 1980, at my choice, and wish my counterparts in RF engineering enjoyed the same freedom to excel.
How many professional degrees can you think of that have been totally negated by the whim of a commission?
Unfortunately, radio engineers have been stomped on at every turn. How would the legal community scream if their degrees were made worthless overnight, and told that anyone could do the things now permitted only to lawyers?
And where I once found delight and surprise all over the dial, radio-by-the-numbers has reduced the "wow" factor into the teens or single digits. Radio is best when it risks NOT making money. This means mom-n-pop stations, not revenue streams.
I understand how business thinks, and it is not in the best interests of the medium, but rather the interests of the stockholder, advertiser,
station owner, or corporation. Are there any giant oil-painting picture corporations, with huge facilities for artists to ply their art?
I guess not. But we can still tell the difference between a masterpiece and newspaper photo, some of us.

Back to the Fairness Doctrine, the easy way makes money, and doing things the right way costs a bit more.
It is very hard for corporations or bottom liners not follow the easy path, yet the result is a race to the bottom.
A golden opportunity awaits someone who can develop the "format" which encourages discourse of opposing viewpoints and does not scare the advertisers. Until then, we already know who will say what, and is that good radio?

 

[Radio_Realist]

A golden opportunity awaits someone who can develop the "format" which encourages discourse of opposing viewpoints and does not scare the advertisers.

I notice that your summary says nothing about attracting listeners. What difference does it make if the "discourse" you speak of is never listened to? If no one tunes in, what's the point of broadcasting? And the issue isn't scaring advertisers away. Advertisers usually don't abandon radio stations because they are afraid of what is broadcast. They usually abandon radio stations because the stations don't have enough listeners. Organized consumer boycotts of products make good news copy, but they don't work all that well. But low Arbitron numbers will chase away advertisers faster than any fear of controversial content by several orders of magnitude.

 

[evnlee]

A politeness doctrine might really be what we need.
That is, after the occasional nutjob has their say on the air, a host or commentator might politely respond with
the common sense wisdom, the accurate rebuttal, or the factual reasons to counterpoint the opinion.
If necessary, inflammatory speech could still be squashed by the usual air dump button.
But derisive statements, name calling, or blatant condescencion (sp?) are,
or ought to be verboten. Such attitudes only galvanize the opposition, and beget more crazies.
A few crackpots a day can make for memorable radio, and we can all laugh privately.

I doubt I will like any new fairness doctrine crafted by this new bunch in office.

scary stuff. The right to free speech protects even speech you would not wish to hear. Start down this road, and radio becomes a very frightening place, indeed.

 

[Radio_Realist]

The right to free speech protects even speech you would not wish to hear.

The right to free speech also includes the right to not listen when someone else is exercising their right to speak. You can say whatever you want, but I have the right to walk away and not listen to you. If you're on the radio, I have the right to change the station.

So, the issue still comes down to a reasonable (which is a word I realize some people don't understand) compromise between the use of the public airwaves and the right to private property. No one is served if the requirements on the content of what is broadcast puts those who own and operate the transmitters out of business.

 

[Tom Wells]

Scary stuff. The right to free speech protects even speech you would not wish to hear. Start down this road, and radio becomes a very frightening place, indeed.

Perhaps I misunderstand. You think a host should be able to show condescending disrespect to callers or show guests?
What about blatant ridicule? Is that OK, too?
That's what I find most frightening about the current state of affairs.
There seem to be a few cable-TV shows that do well covering contentious issues with discussion panels comprising opposing viewpoints.
People do watch them.

Showing respect to others should never seem like a frightening prospect, if we truly value the things america stands for.

The right to free speech protects even speech you would not wish to hear.

The right to free speech also includes the right to not listen when someone else is exercising their right to speak. You can say whatever you want, but I have the right to walk away and not listen to you. If you're on the radio, I have the right to change the station.

So, the issue still comes down to a reasonable (which is a word I realize some people don't understand) compromise between the use of the public airwaves and the right to private property. No one is served if the requirements on the content of what is broadcast puts those who own and operate the transmitters out of business.

That is why contentious issues need to be aired in a specific package, standalone from the bread-and-butter (money-MAKING) parts of the
airtime. If required of all license holders, no one has a right to feel put upon. This is the public service requirement.
Reasonable compromise would either require radio hosts to engage their sensibilities before they open their mouth, or give airtime to others who should be as free as the host to engage in wild accusations or unfounded opinion.

I am sure there are formats that have no appeal at all you, and some that do.
We are free to ignore that which we do not wish to hear.
In the case of something irrelevant, lets say, "sports yap", little harm is done if we restrict our attention to the matter.
In the case of something like the current police action/occupation of Iraq, there should have been a great deal of public discourse
before proceeding. The current model does not permit this. It is imposible to debate someone standing in a bully pulpit.

I WANT to hear that which I would not wish to hear.
I am trying to avoid specific issues that would cloud this discussion.

Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

Some subjects are too important to permit people to become complacent in their own ignorance.
"Hey, buddy, your tire is real low." Do you WANT to hear this? No, but you'd better do something about it before you
ruin a tire or have a loss of control at speed.

If the business end is successful, I applaud your fiscal policy. But that doesn't adress whether or not it is good radio.
If business success means you can only satisfy the corporate advertisers, then enjoy the downhill ride.
The advertisers are a fickle bunch anyway. Don't count on them to validate your success.
I think you ought to buy a newspaper

 

[gr8oldies]

How exactly arer you going to write this regulation so that no host can be condescending to a caller? "Yes, Hitler was really a nice guy? OK, thank you for calling".

 

[Radio_Realist]

If required of all license holders, no one has a right to feel put upon. This is the public service requirement.

That could bring back the Sunday Morning Public Service "ghetto", when all the stations ran their "public affairs" programs, and everyone listened to records until noon.

 

[evnlee]

Perhaps I misunderstand. You think a host should be able to show condescending disrespect to callers or show guests?
What about blatant ridicule? Is that OK, too?

Showing respect to others should never seem like a frightening prospect, if we truly value the things america stands for.

Reasonable compromise would either require radio hosts to engage their sensibilities before they open their mouth, or give airtime to others who should be as free as the host to engage in wild accusations or unfounded opinion.

What is difficult to understand? You have asked for federally mandated police power to force hosts to be 'polite' and 'reasonable'...... but from who's perspective? Yours? Ann Coulter's?

You say "derisive statements, name calling, or blatant condescencion ( sic )" should be forbidden, and to top it all off you use the german term 'Verboten'! Am I the only one that finds that line of reasoning 'scary'?

I think you ought to read a history book

 

[Tom Wells]

Politeness can not be enforced. It is a matter of civility. I would never call for federally policed behavior.

And I apologize for the use of a german word. I apologize in advance for any non-standard word usage.

"Reasonable", means in this case, something the vast majority of civilized people can agree on.

We don't say rude things to one another, we follow the golden rule.

I cut off quickly on the newspaper comment, as I had to fix a printing press suddenly gone awry.

What I was trying to say, was that if one buys a newspaper (the whole shebang, not just one copy), they are free to say almost anything
short of libel and slander.

I knew the sunday morning ghetto would be brought up. This was the natural result of broadcasters complying with the letter of law, while
avoiding the issue as much as possible. This would be one of the first issues a new FD should address.

When someone brings out Hitler, it is clear we are touching a nerve, or have come to an impasse.
The host should say firmly that Hitler was a proven murderer, well documented, and then yes, thank them for the call, but that we're
not here to play revisionist history.
Most people would find such a response civil, polite, and to the point, EVEN IF the caller didn't.
It is not reasonable or polite for such a host to then make disparaging commentary about the caller, or characterize them, as is commonly done now.

The issues of the day we should be airing are seldom so cut and dried as the atrocities of Hitler, and have much more value to society.

Ann Coulter, Al Franken, I don't care. I want those in front of a microphone to turn off the "god" mentality and find a voice that is not demeaning to views they don't personally espouse. This requires engaging the brain before making statements regarding issues about which
there is considerable disagreement. They need be especially careful not to interject their own opinions as facts in such areas.

I hope we can keep this dicussion civil. It is clear that many prefer the airwaves to be a restricted outlet.

The history books show that governments are never happy with freedom of information, or a voice that might disagree with the party line.
Advertising by corporations also is quite comfy with the status quo, as they've lobbied heavily for their protected status.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Politeness can not be enforced. It is a matter of civility. I would never call for federally policed behavior.

And yet you said, "If required of all license holders, no one has a right to feel put upon. This is the public service requirement. Reasonable compromise would either require radio hosts to engage their sensibilities before they open their mouth, or give airtime to others who should be as free as the host to engage in wild accusations or unfounded opinion."

If exercising what you describe in giving "airtime to others who should be as free as the host" as part of the licensing requirements, then that is most assuredly a call for "Federally policed behaviour".

"I want those in front of a microphone to turn off the "god" mentality and find a voice that is not demeaning to views they don't personally espouse. This requires engaging the brain before making statements regarding issues about which there is considerable disagreement. They need be especially careful not to interject their own opinions as facts in such areas."

Yeah? Well, I want to come home from work and find Pam Anderson there to greet me wearing nothing but a smile and handing me a tall, cold beer. What your "want" and my "want" have in common is that neither one of them will ever happen in this reality. What makes them different is that I recognize my fantasy as a fantasy, while you regard your fantasy as something that you want the government to provide for you.

 

[country24]

"'Reasonable', means in this case, something the vast majority of civilized people can agree on."

On November 10, 2001, do you really think "the vast majority of civilized people" could have agreed that it was reasonable to suggest that we were about to experience a terrerist attack in this country that would kill almost three thousand people.

Actually there were a few knowledgable people trying to warn us that something like that might very well happen, but no one was paying any attention. Not Democrats, not Republicans, not the mainstream media and certainly not the public. But I'm still glad they had the right to say it. Even on the radio.

 

[Tom Wells]

"I want those in front of a microphone to turn off the "god" mentality and find a voice that is not demeaning to views they don't personally espouse. This requires engaging the brain before making statements regarding issues about which there is considerable disagreement. They need be especially careful not to interject their own opinions as facts in such areas."

Yeah? Well, I want to come home from work and find Pam Anderson there to greet me wearing nothing but a smile and handing me a tall, cold beer. What your "want" and my "want" have in common is that neither one of them will ever happen in this reality. What makes them different is that I recognize my fantasy as a fantasy, while you regard your fantasy as something that you want the government to provide for you.

At one time, commentary was clearly identified as such.
No one would have considered proper broadcasting etiquette (yes, etiquette!) with federally "policed" behavior.
The earliest days were a madhouse, with MANY stations espousing the most extreme crazy viewpoints ( google Father Coughlin ).
Finally the FRC made them sit on one frequency, and behave as dependable resources to the public.
They shut down WHAL, (Hal's radio shop at 219 watts on 1050-1060, depending)

They included very specific public service requirements as a stipulation for granting a license.
They specified the public file be established! Go write something in the file!
Boy, I'm sure that's every station's favorite secret headache.

On November 10, 2001, do you really think "the vast majority of civilized people" could have agreed that it was reasonable to suggest that we were about to experience a terrerist attack in this country that would kill almost three thousand people.

Actually there were a few knowledgable people trying to warn us that something like that might very well happen, but no one was paying any attention. Not Democrats, not Republicans, not the mainstream media and certainly not the public. But I'm still glad they had the right to say it. Even on the radio.

I mentioned our human fault of selective ignorance.
How shall we best use radio to overcome ignorance in such important matters as this?

I'm quite sure those concerned were not being heard, or given due credit.

Someone, way back, mentioned the Dave Baum show on WIND. This was about as good as it could be.
Both viewpoints given a fair shake. And LOTS of people listened BY CHOICE.

It is clear what the 18 or some years without a fairness doctrine has done to those who grew in the industry without it.
It is another reason I am sorry I can't support radio professionally, much as I would like.
The business of radio has so dis-respected every part of of the ART of radio, content and engineering, that the current sad state is
where we find radio.

Flip commentary using words such fantasy will not address the genuine need the FCC felt radio must address, as newspapers weren't,
even if later political considerations found it expedient to eliminate this requirement in a era of deregulation.

It was not a fantasy, I do remember it working better than what we have now.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Finally the FRC made them sit on one frequency, and behave as dependable resources to the public.

You seem to think that technical regulations regarding frequency and signal strength are forever linked to regulating the content of what is broadcast. They are not. Just because the government regulated those two separate things simultaneously doesn't mean that the two are forever intertwined.

The government in the 21st century needs to regulate radio in the manner in which radio needs to be regulated in the 21st century. That means maintaining good technical regs for signal strength and frequency, and doing the absolute minimum regulation necessary to ensure that the private sector maintains a good, operating national transmitter network for emergencies. If that means stations have to pay their bills by broadcasting Rush Limbaugh or Opie and Anthony, so be it. Whatever it takes to make sure that the transmitters don't get abandoned. Because the day will come when we'll need those transmitters working for emergency broadcasting. So in the meantime, we have to simply keep them working.

We can't let radio go the way television did. If a national disaster knocked out the TV cable systems, there would be no way that emergency information could be effectively broadcast on television. Not enough homes in America have antennas in place to receive a local television station broadcast. Broadcast radio needs to be maintained for emergency use. And that means the companies doing the maintenance need to make enough profit to do that.