Fairness doctrine

[Tom Wells]

Obviously, there were a raft of things regulated, I just picked two.
And I don't think those two were anywhere near the same time, station conduct was later, I'm sure.

My point was, that at first, any guy with a tinfoil hat that wanted to could get on the air.
With his own facility costing him maybe as much to run as an electric oven.
And there were lots of crazy and radical opinions on the air.

Well, this had to be stopped, and minumum powers were also established.
This raised the bar beyond what a "hobby broadcaster" could afford.

Then people began to expect the usable service areas, and the eventual public service requirement had
good compliance until our country had to deal with divisive issues with large unstable constituencies.

Like suppressed blacks and disenfranchised youth in the 60's who realized they were about to become cannon fodder.
Issues like equality for blacks, vietnam, and others made following the old FD doctrine a nightmare.

This is when shirking the duty became the norm for next 25 years, until deregulation
seemed to be mere admission of the Commission's acceptance of the weak effort made, and the abandonment of their
stated goal of furthering the fourth estate, created explicitly for the good and betterment of the people.

Throwing all specific political considerations aside, how could radio save itself by attracting listeners and
rising above the contentious, current model?
There must a way, for it's the at the heart of why radio distinguishes itself in the noisy world of newer, disconnected technolgies which are delivery of content but not radio.

If the heart is removed, the other members perish quickly likewise.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Obviously, there were a raft of things regulated, I just picked two.

Oh? what, pray tell, could possibly be regulated in the broadcast industry other than technical specs like power and frequency, and content? What is there in broadcasting that isn't either some sort of technical specifications of the signal transmitted or the content of what is transmitted?

Throwing all specific political considerations aside, how could radio save itself by attracting listeners and
rising above the contentious, current model?

Two questions. First, what is it that radio needs to save itself from? Second, what is with the polar opposites of "attracting listeners" and "rising about the contentious, current model"? The "current model" happens to be extremely successful at attracting listeners. That's something that radio that was patrolled by the politeness police would have a very difficult time doing.

If the heart is removed, the other members perish quickly likewise.

That's also true about the brain, the liver, and the lungs. So what?

 

[Tom Wells]

Radio is a game of musical chairs. Every time the music stops, there are 10-100 fewer chairs.
How fast can anyone run? I remind you I stayed out of this business, eyes open.

Radio seems to be having an "octegenerian's crisis", where it still makes the best damn fine custom product, but is losing
market share to newer tech, with a cleverly injection-molded product, and despite the years of trimming meat and fat alike, cannot chase the ad dollars, now going to other media. This means even more cutbacks.
Things considered necessities before. Now we are are trimming fat, meat and bone.

These are not required of the newer media, riding others' infrastructure instead of the owner's RF dollar.
This new infrastructure was/is heavily subsidized by your phone add-on taxes over the years.

The answer to No.1 is..
Radio is trying to save itself from a not-necessary but imaginable eventuality of irrelevance.

The answer to No. 2 is..
Polar opposites are necessary to have one whole magnet. Monopolar entities are in the realm of argued physics, considered as fleeting,
anomalous, hard to pin down, undependable, and well, unbalanced.

The present monopolar radio nature attracts money in ad dollars (via ratings).
I again insist this does not equate with good radio, or service in the public's interest.
In the same way LA car chases are/ain't neither! good TV.
This same model does not attract the engaged intellectual listener who may be in a position, or of ability to lead.
If you think the sports yap listener is as valuable as an aware citizen, we know the line cleaves on $$.


I repeat that what distinguishes radio is like the "old world craftmanship" few will afford, anymore.
The introduction of new "data" for the brain, whether music, stories, news, facts, opinions, even those unbelievable.
It was just another old way, once considered the right way.
Like obeying stop lights, holding doors open for people indiscriminately, and other civilities.
Much more money is available to those free to be totally self-interested.

The need for radio to be unbiased, whereas newspapers were/are accepted to BE biased, argues for this doctrine to be upheld/reestablished.
It is not acceptable to claim the internet provides adequate public contact.

If the fairness doctrine were the head of the roach that is radio, and was pulled off 20 years ago,
I mourn the decaptitated body still roaming the land these days, looking for something to eat.
Is that better than the heart analogy?

 

[Radio_Realist]

Polar opposites are necessary to have one whole magnet.

And it take four sides to make a pyramid, and five sides to have a pentagon. Diamonds have dozens of facets, and the more sides a diamond has, the more it's worth. It also takes two hands to handle a Whopper.

If you think the sports yap listener is as valuable as an aware citizen, we know the line cleaves on $$.

If you think you or anyone else has the right to place a value on any citizen's worth, then you are full of sheep dip.

Is that better than the heart analogy?

 

[Tom Wells]

I like the diamond analogy.
Now that we agree that more facets are more valuable, how best to apply this to the gem that is radio?

"Polar opposition" is such a simplistic model.


I presume to value citizens' value equally, prompting this discourse.

I will not argue with your experience. From the sidelines, front row, 50 yard line, I see radio making what I see as a
major strategy mistake. Fully defensible on the fiscal side, but with the predictable result of irrelevancy.

I just had a Whopper (tm)w/cheese and y'know, it's true. Yum.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Now that we agree that more facets are more valuable, how best to apply this to the gem that is radio?

There's a reason why some people handle the technical end of radio and others handle the content.

Radio isn't a gem. It's a communications medium. It's good for what it's good for, and not so good for what it's not good for. No amount of government regulation will change it from what it is into what you wish it was.

The unseen hand of the marketplace is the single most powerful, effective, and beneficial force in the universe for managing economies and the allocation of resources. And that unseen hand has made radio into what it is today. Radio is what it is, and what it is, is also what it should be.

 

[Tom Wells]

Ahh, you do not esteem radio to be a gem. Merely a commmunications medium. That's what your business experience
has left, the flavor of a mere commodity. Again, respecting your experience and decision to move on, do you remember when radio was a
far grander thing in >your< mind, than your eventual understanding on a daily basis? Can you remember being just the listener?

To presume the owners' interest should trump public service is justification for the current situation.
Yes, the marketplace has made all of what we enjoy today.
There are blessings and also maddening unforeseen consequences of letting the market dictate.
We often adopt inferior technologies because they are well-marketed and sucessful commercially.

Things are what they are. They are seldom what they should be, because maintaining high standards is hard work, and a cheaper way
must always be found than the current model.
It doesn't help when the FCC relaxes standards, it invites irrelevancy.

May I ask if you left the industry in dissatisfaction?
And was it financially motivated, or personal satisfaction-related?

 

[Radio_Realist]

I read somewhere that Dennis Kucinich is going to try to revive the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Does it strike anyone as odd that so many people are basing their opinions of what effect a brand new, as yet not written or enacted piece of legislation might have based on what an earlier regulation said? Does no one realize that the old Fairness Doctrine was what it was, and any new Fairness Doctrine will be what it will be, and there is nothing anywhere that would require the new one to be just like the old one?

This new Fairness Doctrine, if it is enacted as proposed by Dennis (the Menace) Kucinich, will reflect the statesmanlike wisdom of the individual who writes and proposes it. How can anyone argue that news/talk radio won't be affected by a Kuchinich-authored law? Or that the Pelosi-led House will display the same sort of common sense as the old Tip O'Neil-led House with regard to broadcast radio?

 

[gr8oldies]

Many of you insist that broadcast radio is about to go away because everyone is listening to iPods and the internet. Yet you want radio to be a "gem" tototally programmed by government. Somehow you think that people can't turn off your high-brow government mandated programming.

 

[Phil Boyce]

There are two threads here on the same topic so I am re-posting here what I posted on the other thread:

OK to use a few nice cliche's, "you can't unring the bell" and "you can't put the genie back in the bottle."

When congress repealed the Fairness Doctrine, they let the genie out of the bottle. The idea was simple, and still is. There are SO many media outlets including lots of radio stations in each market, that it is unfair, and probably unconstitutional to place those restrictions on radio stations. You can't go back now, because to put those old rules back in place would kill talkradio now, as we know it.

The nice thing about Air America is that it proves the point: Radio is so big and broad, it can support all kinds of opinions. But even without AA, every listener has a multitude of choices to get their information...and those choices are growing rapidly.

You can't go back now, years after the fact, and punish talkradio for it's own success. You can't go back to a station like WABC and say "OK you have 3 hours of Rush, now you have to follow that with 3 hours of Al Franken." It would destroy WABC or any station like mine.

As technology grows, there are even more places to get your info than when the FD was repealed. Back then there were no blogs. Today there are tons of them, spewing out all kinds of info...some of it right some wrong. Listeners have an enormous number of choices and sources.

So I can't see it happening. The genie is out of the bottle.

pb

 

[Radio_Realist]

So I can't see it happening. The genie is out of the bottle.

Sadly, I can see it happening. There is no reason to believe that something like common sense will ever trump the attempts of misguided politicians to screw things up.

There was also a time when it looked like broadcast television was going to loosen up on their content rules, and adopt a more relaxed position on things like partial nudity and certain words you can't say on television. Then, thanks to political decisions in Washington DC and threats of the use of government authority and power, rules regarding those things were tighten up, not loosened.

The government shouldn't go back and attempt to punish talk radio for its success. But "shouldn't" and "won't" are too very, very different things, especially with people like Nancy Pelosi in running the House.

And before the moderator gets his knickers in a twist, that wasn't a comment about Ms. Pelosi's party affiliation. It's a valid observation of her personal character and how it might impact radio in general and news/radio in particular.

 

[evnlee]

Here's a good question: According to Talkers magazine and William B Mayers, the number of stations devoted exclusively to news and talk shows has grown from about 75 in 1980 to about 1,400 today.

Even with syndication, how in the world could they police that many sources? There are considerably more N/T shows then the 1960's...

 

[Phil Boyce]

evnlee says

Here's a good question: According to Talkers magazine and William B Mayers, the number of stations devoted exclusively to news and talk shows has grown from about 75 in 1980 to about 1,400 today.

Even with syndication, how in the world could they police that many sources? There are considerably more N/T shows then the 1960's...

This is a great point. The marketplace of ideas is alive and well...and listeners have gerat choises today. I can´t imagine the government coming in and screwing this up by trying to legislate fairness. It is not up to me as a PD to promise fairness...I just promise great radio. Most of those talk stationshave have flourished since the FD was repealed would be destroyed by bringing it back. How does that serve the public interest?

pb

 

[Radio_Realist]

Even with syndication, how in the world could they police that many sources?

First, that would depend on how the new Fairness Doctrine is worded. As I keep reminding everyone (and as Fred Flinstone can't seem to understand) the old Fairness Doctrine said what it said, and any new Fairness Doctrine might well say something very, very different. For example, a new Fairness Doctrine could possibly contain provisions through which any disgruntled listener could file a complaint and the station named in the complaint would bear the burden of refuting the accusation.

Or, instead of enforcing each little infraction, a new Fairness Doctrine could simply include such serious and expensive penalties, such as temporary loss of license and a requirement to go silent for a period of time, that station's would voluntarily hold themselves in check to avoid running into any problems. As has been pointed out in this thread in earlier posts, the consequences of violating the old Fairness Doctrine were severe enough that the mere threat of them was sufficient to get most broadcasters to voluntarily toe the line and not even attempt to challenge the rule's boundaries.

How does that serve the public interest?

What does serving the public interest have to do with Congress enacting laws?

 

[AKLes]

The so-called fairness doctrine might have had some intelligence to it when there were very few stations (compared with today's glut) and news came from three networks, pretty much exclusively. And when those networks had their own commentators who blatantly took political sides (Alex Dryer, Gabriel Heatter, Lowell Thomas, et al).

Spectrum was artificially scarce and it would have been easy to have one point of view (on any subject) monopolize a primary means of communication. Even worse with TV when there were very, very few stations.

Then every city of any size had multiple newspapers and it made sense that they strongly present their editorial viewpoints; the print situation then was pretty much like the radio situation is today....lots of opportunity for divergent views.

Now, however, it's pretty much ONE daily newspaper per city so any view that conflicts with that one loud voice is stifled.

With that in mind, indeed it IS time for a new fairness doctrine....one that must be imposed where monopoly prevails....newspapers must be brought to heel!

It's in the public interest.

Besides, newspapers are distributed using motor vehicles that travel public roads so are as "subsidized" as radio and TV stations that use "the public airwaves". With this in mind, there should be license fees for newspapers so they pay their fair share for the use of those publically paid-for roads!



.

 

[country24]

Radio_Realist says, "that would depend on how the new Fairness Doctrine is worded."

I thought you wanted to "bring back" the Fairness Doctrine. If that's the case, then just look at the regulation as it was adopted in 1949, and see how it is worded.

Are you admiting that what you really want to do is come up with something different and just use the old title to make it lsound good?

 

[smedge2006]

Besides, newspapers are distributed using motor vehicles that travel public roads so are as "subsidized" as radio and TV stations that use "the public airwaves". With this in mind, there should be license fees for newspapers so they pay their fair share for the use of those publically paid-for roads!

This argument would work if and only if the FCC or some other government agency granted the newspapers monopoly rights to use the public roads (or the internet) to distribute newspapers, and prosecuted anyone who used those roads or the internet to distribute competing newspapers, as is done with radio waves ("pirate" stations).

 

[Radio_Realist]

I thought you wanted to "bring back" the Fairness Doctrine.

Whatever gave you that idea? I've been one of the loudest opponents of any sort of Fairness Doctrine revival. I'm against bringing back the old one, and I'm against writing a new one. It's Dennis Kuchinich who's talking about introducing legislation in Congress to create a new one.

Are you admiting that what you really want to do is come up with something different and just use the old title to make it lsound good?

Hell no! I'm not admitting, I'm accusing the political left in the United States of trying to do that.

Any sort of "Fairness Doctrine", whether it's the original FCC regulation or some new version such as a separate law passed by Congress, would be a terrible thing for the nation as a whole, and for broadcasting in particular.

 

[XTalker]

Its not about enforcemnt. The FCC already had thousands of rules that are self-enforced. When was the last time you saw an inspector? Stations ascertain issues, provide programs in response to them, put quarterly reports in their public files. Stations comply with hundreds of technical rules, all without aggressive enforcement from the FCC. Enforcement is NOT the issue. If the new fairness doctrine said "you will provide an equal amount of time for all points of view." the corporate lawyers that run radio today will devise all kinds of forms and reports for local stations to fill out.

Between the FCC and SOX, it surprises me that stations don't have a stand-alone "compliance department". Have you read a contest rules promo lately? Or a license transfer announcement? Or an EEO statement? Why knows what the lawyers will do next!