-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Fairness doctrine
- Thread starter radioman1380
- Start date
It would be a record keeping nightmare! Most of today's talk stations would be gone! They just couldn't afford to do the record keeping - nor would most want to run the risk! Remember folks, it was only after deregulation and the dropping of content numbers that we saw the growth of news-talk radio in markets other than the top ten!
By the way, would country stations have to count Dixie Chicks songs as liberal content?
By the way, would country stations have to count Dixie Chicks songs as liberal content?
J
Johnny Morgan
Guest
For the sake of what we're talking about here, this is what the FCC currently says about the Fairness Doctrine:
47 CFR 73.1910 (adopted 1978):
The Fairness Doctrine is contained in section 315(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which provides that broadcasters
have certain obligations to afford reasonable opportunity for the
discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. See FCC
public notice ``Fairness Doctrine and the Public Interest Standards,''
39 FR 26372. Copies may be obtained from the FCC upon request.
Now, we know that was repealed in 1987. This statement still hangs out in the CFR as a bit of historical text.
Here's what the Supreme Court cited as the Fairness Doctrine text in 1969's Red Lion case (which upheld the constitutionality of the doctrine):
The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine, which originated very early in the history of broadcasting and has maintained its present outlines for some time. It is an obligation whose content has been defined in a long series of FCC rulings in particular cases, and which is distinct from the statutory [370] requirement of 315 of the Communications Act [note 1] that equal time be allotted all qualified candidates for public office. Two aspects of the fairness doctrine, relating to personal attacks in the context of controversial public issues and to political editorializing, were codified more precisely in the form of FCC regulations in 1967.
***
Not long after the Red Lion litigation was begun, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 31 Fed. Reg. 5710, with an eye to making the personal attack aspect of the fairness doctrine more precise and more readily enforceable, and to specifying its rules relating to political editorials. After considering written comments supporting and opposing the rules, the FCC adopted them substantially as proposed, 32 Fed. Reg. 10303. Twice amended, 32 Fed. Reg. 11531, 33 Fed. Reg. 5362, the rules were held unconstitutional in the RTNDA litigation by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, on review of the rule-making proceeding, as abridging the freedoms of speech and press. 400 F.2d 1002 (1968).
As they now stand amended, the regulations read as follows:
"Personal attacks; political editorials.
"(a) When, during the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, an attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group, the licensee shall, within a reasonable time and in no event later than 1 week after the attack, transmit to the person or group attacked (1) notification of the date, time and identification of the broadcast; (2) a script or tape (or an accurate summary if a script or tape is not available) of the [374] attack; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the licensee's facilities.
"(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not be applicable (1) to attacks on foreign groups or foreign public figures; (2) to personal attacks which are made by legally qualified candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or those associated with them in the campaign, on other such candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or persons associated with the candidates in the campaign; and (3) to bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interviews, and on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including commentary or analysis contained in the foregoing programs, but the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall be applicable to editorials of the licensee).
"NOTE: The fairness doctrine is applicable to situations coming within [(3)], above, and, in a specific factual situation, may be applicable in the general area of political broadcasts [(2)], above. See, section 315 (a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 315 (a); Public Notice: Applicability of the Fairness Doctrine in the Handling of Controversial Issues of Public Importance. 29 F. R. 10415. The categories listed in [(3)] are the same as those specified in section 315 (a) of the Act.
"(c) Where a licensee, in an editorial, (i) endorses or (ii) opposes a legally qualified candidate or candidates, the licensee shall, within 24 hours after the editorial, transmit to respectively (i) the other qualified candidate or candidates for the same office or (ii) the candidate opposed in the editorial (1) notification of the date and the time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for a candidate or a spokesman of the candidate to respond over the [375] licensee's facilities: Provided, however, That where such editorials are broadcast within 72 hours prior to the day of the election, the licensee shall comply with the provisions of this paragraph sufficiently far in advance of the broadcast to enable the candidate or candidates to have a reasonable opportunity to prepare a response and to present it in a timely fashion." 47 CFR 73.123, 73.300, 73.598, 73.679 (all identical).
***
There is a twofold duty laid down by the FCC's decisions and described by the 1949 Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246 (1949). The broadcaster must give adequate coverage to public issues, United Broadcasting Co., 10 F. C. C. 515 (1945), and coverage must be fair in that it accurately reflects the opposing views. New Broadcasting Co., 6 P & F Radio Reg. 258 (1950). This must be done at the broadcaster's own expense if sponsorship is unavailable. Cullman Broadcasting Co., 25 P & F Radio Reg. 895 (1963). [378] Moreover, the duty must be met by programming obtained at the licensee's own initiative if available from no other source. John J. Dempsey, 6 P & F Radio Reg. 615 (1950); see Metropolitan Broadcasting Corp., 19 P & F Radio Reg. 602 (1960); The Evening News Assn., 6 P & F Radio Reg. 283 (1950).
That ALL is the Fairness Doctrine, and that ALL is what was held to be constitutional in Red Lion.
Equal time (for candidates) is contained in Sec. 315 of the 1934 Act. The Fairness Doctrine, as it once was from before the 1934 Act, through the 1949 Report, and up to its unanimous repeal by the FCC in 1987, is a corollary to Sec. 315.
47 CFR 73.1910 (adopted 1978):
The Fairness Doctrine is contained in section 315(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which provides that broadcasters
have certain obligations to afford reasonable opportunity for the
discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. See FCC
public notice ``Fairness Doctrine and the Public Interest Standards,''
39 FR 26372. Copies may be obtained from the FCC upon request.
Now, we know that was repealed in 1987. This statement still hangs out in the CFR as a bit of historical text.
Here's what the Supreme Court cited as the Fairness Doctrine text in 1969's Red Lion case (which upheld the constitutionality of the doctrine):
The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine, which originated very early in the history of broadcasting and has maintained its present outlines for some time. It is an obligation whose content has been defined in a long series of FCC rulings in particular cases, and which is distinct from the statutory [370] requirement of 315 of the Communications Act [note 1] that equal time be allotted all qualified candidates for public office. Two aspects of the fairness doctrine, relating to personal attacks in the context of controversial public issues and to political editorializing, were codified more precisely in the form of FCC regulations in 1967.
***
Not long after the Red Lion litigation was begun, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 31 Fed. Reg. 5710, with an eye to making the personal attack aspect of the fairness doctrine more precise and more readily enforceable, and to specifying its rules relating to political editorials. After considering written comments supporting and opposing the rules, the FCC adopted them substantially as proposed, 32 Fed. Reg. 10303. Twice amended, 32 Fed. Reg. 11531, 33 Fed. Reg. 5362, the rules were held unconstitutional in the RTNDA litigation by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, on review of the rule-making proceeding, as abridging the freedoms of speech and press. 400 F.2d 1002 (1968).
As they now stand amended, the regulations read as follows:
"Personal attacks; political editorials.
"(a) When, during the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, an attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group, the licensee shall, within a reasonable time and in no event later than 1 week after the attack, transmit to the person or group attacked (1) notification of the date, time and identification of the broadcast; (2) a script or tape (or an accurate summary if a script or tape is not available) of the [374] attack; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the licensee's facilities.
"(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not be applicable (1) to attacks on foreign groups or foreign public figures; (2) to personal attacks which are made by legally qualified candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or those associated with them in the campaign, on other such candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or persons associated with the candidates in the campaign; and (3) to bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interviews, and on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including commentary or analysis contained in the foregoing programs, but the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall be applicable to editorials of the licensee).
"NOTE: The fairness doctrine is applicable to situations coming within [(3)], above, and, in a specific factual situation, may be applicable in the general area of political broadcasts [(2)], above. See, section 315 (a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 315 (a); Public Notice: Applicability of the Fairness Doctrine in the Handling of Controversial Issues of Public Importance. 29 F. R. 10415. The categories listed in [(3)] are the same as those specified in section 315 (a) of the Act.
"(c) Where a licensee, in an editorial, (i) endorses or (ii) opposes a legally qualified candidate or candidates, the licensee shall, within 24 hours after the editorial, transmit to respectively (i) the other qualified candidate or candidates for the same office or (ii) the candidate opposed in the editorial (1) notification of the date and the time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for a candidate or a spokesman of the candidate to respond over the [375] licensee's facilities: Provided, however, That where such editorials are broadcast within 72 hours prior to the day of the election, the licensee shall comply with the provisions of this paragraph sufficiently far in advance of the broadcast to enable the candidate or candidates to have a reasonable opportunity to prepare a response and to present it in a timely fashion." 47 CFR 73.123, 73.300, 73.598, 73.679 (all identical).
***
There is a twofold duty laid down by the FCC's decisions and described by the 1949 Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246 (1949). The broadcaster must give adequate coverage to public issues, United Broadcasting Co., 10 F. C. C. 515 (1945), and coverage must be fair in that it accurately reflects the opposing views. New Broadcasting Co., 6 P & F Radio Reg. 258 (1950). This must be done at the broadcaster's own expense if sponsorship is unavailable. Cullman Broadcasting Co., 25 P & F Radio Reg. 895 (1963). [378] Moreover, the duty must be met by programming obtained at the licensee's own initiative if available from no other source. John J. Dempsey, 6 P & F Radio Reg. 615 (1950); see Metropolitan Broadcasting Corp., 19 P & F Radio Reg. 602 (1960); The Evening News Assn., 6 P & F Radio Reg. 283 (1950).
That ALL is the Fairness Doctrine, and that ALL is what was held to be constitutional in Red Lion.
Equal time (for candidates) is contained in Sec. 315 of the 1934 Act. The Fairness Doctrine, as it once was from before the 1934 Act, through the 1949 Report, and up to its unanimous repeal by the FCC in 1987, is a corollary to Sec. 315.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
this is what the FCC currently says about the Fairness Doctrine:
And that's all well and good. But what is the wording that will be in Kuchinich's new Fairness Doctrine Bill? We can talk about that Fairness Doctrine I said and its impact (or lack thereof) on broadcasting. What counts is the potential impact of Fairness Doctrine II, the sequel.
And that's all well and good. But what is the wording that will be in Kuchinich's new Fairness Doctrine Bill? We can talk about that Fairness Doctrine I said and its impact (or lack thereof) on broadcasting. What counts is the potential impact of Fairness Doctrine II, the sequel.
XTalker said:There is no doubt, the plan among liberals in Congress is not to revive the old Fairness Doctrine. It is not just sitting on the shelf waiting to be put back into effect. They goal is to force exposure for their liberal ideas and to silence conservative talk radio! Plain! Simple!
Those evil Liberal Democrats
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Those evil Liberal Democrats
I wouldn't call them evil. The more appropriate terms would be "opportunistic" and/or "ruthless". They want to win, and they don't care much what they have to do in order to accomplish that goal. If one agrees with their goals, then one would applaud their ambition in accomplishing those goals. If one disagrees with their goals, then one is also likely to disagree with their methods.
I wouldn't call them evil. The more appropriate terms would be "opportunistic" and/or "ruthless". They want to win, and they don't care much what they have to do in order to accomplish that goal. If one agrees with their goals, then one would applaud their ambition in accomplishing those goals. If one disagrees with their goals, then one is also likely to disagree with their methods.
A
Andrew Kent
Guest
Rigid requirements for equal access to the airwaves may not be the panacea its proponents make it out to be and could actually exclude some individuals and points of view from being heard. It would also allow network and station legal departments to micromanage programming decisions currently made by program directors and talk show hosts. A case in point:
Back in the presidential campaign of 1980, the League of Women Voters sponsored a debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter and considered including independent candidate John Anderson, whose polls were above the League's eligibility threshold of 15% and who had the endorsement of some established state third parties, most notably New York's Liberal Party. When Anderson's polls fell below 15%, possibly due to a lack of broadcast coverage, the league decided to exclude him from the debates, fearing that to include him would open the door to other independents such as the controversial, if not infamous, Lyndon LaRouche. The networks had no problem covering the proposed two-way debate, as it was a bona fide news event exempted from the Equal Time Rule. But then, in stepped the fledgling CNN, who set John Anderson up in another venue a thousand miles away, and, through the magic of modern broadcast technology, was prepared to feed a somewhat delayed "three-way debate" to anyone willing to air it.
News directors loved the idea, but, while they were figuring out ways for their stations to air the CNN production, the stations' legal departments shot down the plan, taking the position that the CNN production, however newsworthy it might have been in and of itself, was not a bona fide news event like the original two-way debate and that to air it would subject the stations themselves, but not CNN, to the equal time rule. Many broadcasting experts, including a former FCC Commissioner, disagreed, but the lawyers prevailed. As I recall, the only major broadcaster to air the CNN fed was PBS.
As a Liberal, albeit a regular listener to Conservative talk radio (WABC - several hours per day), I am, at times, a bit uncomfortable with the constant, and often heavy-handed, barage of right-wing ideology, and especially the confrontational, batting-cage style of guys like Marc Levin, who I think may have been Bob Grant (or maybe even Joe Pyne) in a previous lifetime. But I listen nonetheless, because it gives me perspective on key issues, because it keeps me mindful of the hipocrisy that pervades both ends of the political spectreum, and because I continue to be entertained.
As for access by opposing viewpoints, most of talk radio's shows are call-in shows, and I've often heard Conservative hosts literally begging for Liberal callers. And I've noticed, too, that the more gentlemanly hosts get the more intelligent callers with the more substantive and articulate presentations of their positions, while the more confrontational and condescending hosts attract more of the naive dorks they like to vilify. But talk radio must, of necessity, be a smorgasbord of personal styles or it will become boring, hence the contrasts between the morning shows like Curtis & Kuby and John Gambling and the later, perhaps more evangelical, shows like Rush (who is in a class by himself), Sean Hannity, the otherwise brilliant Marc Levin who tends to attract Liberal masochists who are an embarassment to the rest of us, Jerry Agar (did I spell his name right?), who is dumber, but not quite as obnoxious as, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, who is kinda like the Howard Stern of Neocon polemics, and then, the refreshingly bizarre, but always enlightening, Coast-to-Coast, which, in a tradition pioneered by Long John Nebel decades ago, reminds us that things aren't always what they seem.
Yes, not all the shows are fairly balanced, and opposing viewpoints are often ridiculed, but the better callers with the more cogent arguments do get heard, and many hosts do solicit expert opposing opinions on controversial issues, if only to facilitate a more interesting discussion. But imagine what a lineup like WABC's weekday schedule would be like if Phil Boyce, or the station's legal department, had to stand there with a stopwatch, ensuring that each show met its quotas, and how could anyone anticipate and identify the many shades of opinion on each topic such that each might have its time on air? Sure, talk radio could be less preachy and more cerebral, but would it be entertaining enough to attract audiences and sponsors? Could commercial stations compete and survive if, like public broadcasters, they programmed to diverse niches without regard to ratings or revenues? A station may have the best hosts, shows, and discussions on the band, but, if it doesn't have the audiences and viable demographics, it may as well have the worst.
If the proponents of a revitalized fairness doctrine want to ensure fairness and balance, then they should convene hearings and conferences on ways to do that before drafting legislative solutions that might make things even worse. With all the alternate, largely unregulated, communications media that have been created since 1987, the finite nature of the AM spectrum becomes less important with every passing year. While more considerate and accommodating talk formats might be a breath of fresh air, this change should be driven by the marketplace with only the most egregious abuses subject to FCC intervention. The best way for stations to serve the public interest is to keep the public interested. It's that simple.
Back in the presidential campaign of 1980, the League of Women Voters sponsored a debate between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter and considered including independent candidate John Anderson, whose polls were above the League's eligibility threshold of 15% and who had the endorsement of some established state third parties, most notably New York's Liberal Party. When Anderson's polls fell below 15%, possibly due to a lack of broadcast coverage, the league decided to exclude him from the debates, fearing that to include him would open the door to other independents such as the controversial, if not infamous, Lyndon LaRouche. The networks had no problem covering the proposed two-way debate, as it was a bona fide news event exempted from the Equal Time Rule. But then, in stepped the fledgling CNN, who set John Anderson up in another venue a thousand miles away, and, through the magic of modern broadcast technology, was prepared to feed a somewhat delayed "three-way debate" to anyone willing to air it.
News directors loved the idea, but, while they were figuring out ways for their stations to air the CNN production, the stations' legal departments shot down the plan, taking the position that the CNN production, however newsworthy it might have been in and of itself, was not a bona fide news event like the original two-way debate and that to air it would subject the stations themselves, but not CNN, to the equal time rule. Many broadcasting experts, including a former FCC Commissioner, disagreed, but the lawyers prevailed. As I recall, the only major broadcaster to air the CNN fed was PBS.
As a Liberal, albeit a regular listener to Conservative talk radio (WABC - several hours per day), I am, at times, a bit uncomfortable with the constant, and often heavy-handed, barage of right-wing ideology, and especially the confrontational, batting-cage style of guys like Marc Levin, who I think may have been Bob Grant (or maybe even Joe Pyne) in a previous lifetime. But I listen nonetheless, because it gives me perspective on key issues, because it keeps me mindful of the hipocrisy that pervades both ends of the political spectreum, and because I continue to be entertained.
As for access by opposing viewpoints, most of talk radio's shows are call-in shows, and I've often heard Conservative hosts literally begging for Liberal callers. And I've noticed, too, that the more gentlemanly hosts get the more intelligent callers with the more substantive and articulate presentations of their positions, while the more confrontational and condescending hosts attract more of the naive dorks they like to vilify. But talk radio must, of necessity, be a smorgasbord of personal styles or it will become boring, hence the contrasts between the morning shows like Curtis & Kuby and John Gambling and the later, perhaps more evangelical, shows like Rush (who is in a class by himself), Sean Hannity, the otherwise brilliant Marc Levin who tends to attract Liberal masochists who are an embarassment to the rest of us, Jerry Agar (did I spell his name right?), who is dumber, but not quite as obnoxious as, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, who is kinda like the Howard Stern of Neocon polemics, and then, the refreshingly bizarre, but always enlightening, Coast-to-Coast, which, in a tradition pioneered by Long John Nebel decades ago, reminds us that things aren't always what they seem.
Yes, not all the shows are fairly balanced, and opposing viewpoints are often ridiculed, but the better callers with the more cogent arguments do get heard, and many hosts do solicit expert opposing opinions on controversial issues, if only to facilitate a more interesting discussion. But imagine what a lineup like WABC's weekday schedule would be like if Phil Boyce, or the station's legal department, had to stand there with a stopwatch, ensuring that each show met its quotas, and how could anyone anticipate and identify the many shades of opinion on each topic such that each might have its time on air? Sure, talk radio could be less preachy and more cerebral, but would it be entertaining enough to attract audiences and sponsors? Could commercial stations compete and survive if, like public broadcasters, they programmed to diverse niches without regard to ratings or revenues? A station may have the best hosts, shows, and discussions on the band, but, if it doesn't have the audiences and viable demographics, it may as well have the worst.
If the proponents of a revitalized fairness doctrine want to ensure fairness and balance, then they should convene hearings and conferences on ways to do that before drafting legislative solutions that might make things even worse. With all the alternate, largely unregulated, communications media that have been created since 1987, the finite nature of the AM spectrum becomes less important with every passing year. While more considerate and accommodating talk formats might be a breath of fresh air, this change should be driven by the marketplace with only the most egregious abuses subject to FCC intervention. The best way for stations to serve the public interest is to keep the public interested. It's that simple.
Andrew Kent says:
You have captured the very essence of my dilemma. I could not do it, nor could any programmer of a station like WABC. We'd be dead. But it is a privilege to count you among the WABC listener base. Hopefully they will not be allowed to destroy us.
pb
But imagine what a lineup like WABC's weekday schedule would be like if Phil Boyce, or the station's legal department, had to stand there with a stopwatch, ensuring that each show met its quotas, and how could anyone anticipate and identify the many shades of opinion on each topic such that each might have its time on air?
You have captured the very essence of my dilemma. I could not do it, nor could any programmer of a station like WABC. We'd be dead. But it is a privilege to count you among the WABC listener base. Hopefully they will not be allowed to destroy us.
pb
I hate to sound overly suspicious, but the following post sounds pretty fishy. The first and only post by Kent, who calls himself a "liberal" says how much he enjoys WABC, which offers a lineup of wall to wall conservatives. He has no problem with listening to this day-long right wing infomercial because it "pervades both ends of the political spectreum"
This seems very similar to a series of posts that were made on this board a few weeks ago by a few fans of Marc Levin show after one of our regular posters, suggested that ABC affiliate relations was putting pressure on some stations to carry his show or lose the Sean Hannity. Now we have a "liberal" that loves WABC.
This seems very similar to a series of posts that were made on this board a few weeks ago by a few fans of Marc Levin show after one of our regular posters, suggested that ABC affiliate relations was putting pressure on some stations to carry his show or lose the Sean Hannity. Now we have a "liberal" that loves WABC.
Andrew Kent said:Rigid requirements for equal access to the airwaves may not be the panacea its proponents make it out to be and could actually exclude some individuals and points of view from being heard. It would also allow network and station legal departments to micromanage programming decisions currently made by program directors and talk show hosts....(see above)
A
Andrew Kent
Guest
Okay, I am new to the board and should have eased myself in with innocuous musings on mundane aspects of news/talk before jumping in as I did. And, yes, I am a liberal fan of WABC, although I never said I agreed with the politics. In fact, I'm a Liberal of the old school, and not a Kool-Aid drinking former radical, so I know how to think, can't be told what to think, and must always weigh my positions against my core beliefs lest I become hypocritical or eschew philosophical consistency in favor of political correctness. But I have become a bit more of a consequentialist, and less of an absolutist, on some issues in my old age, but it wasn't talk radio that did that, it was 9/11.
I think the reason why we have such things as "conservative talk" or "liberal talk" is that many people prefer what they want to hear to what they ought to know, and they choose sides, stations, and shows in much the same way as they choose sports teams. So, while they may want to hear discussions of both sides of an issue, they are rooting for the position they support and for the hosts fighting to support it. The imbalance is necessary to make it a good fight. There's just got to be a home team. Would the largely liberal/radical audiences of WBAI and Air America accept an even-handed airing of positions they deemed politically incorrect? Ideally, a good host with strong opinions gives opposing guests or callers enough rope to hang themselves instead of humiliating them or shouting them down. I've heard seasoned hosts deal with openly bigoted callers by just letting them talk and not cutting them off. It works. The problem is that, to maintain the action and keep things moving, discussions have to be short, sweet, and punchy, effectively reducing complex issues to a series of sound bites. Radio is not a substitute for newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, nor should it be.
Having said that, I do enjoy hosts and shows that break the mold. Brian Whitman is a breath of fresh air, not only because he's liberal, but because he's funny, doesn't pontificate, and doesn't take himself too seriously. Matt Drudge is refreshing because he thinks for himself, says what he thinks, and has more leverage than many media moguls without carrying anyone's water. Curtis and Kuby are great together because, while they seem to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum, each speaks for the common person in real life terms, and Ron Kuby has an uncanny ability to explain both sides of complex issues so that anyone can understand and discuss them. And the ensemble cast of Warner Wolf, George Webber, the traffic and weather team, and frequent subs like Mark Simone, make the Morning Show, and its listeners, one big happy family and, in my opinion, the best entertainment experience in morning drive.
But point-counterpoint and odd-couple pairings like Curtis and Kuby don't always work. When WABC tried to pair the strident and sarcastic Lynn Samuels with the always gentlemanly and more poetic Barry Farber, touting them as "two scorpions in a brandy glass," Lynn lost it during a heated discussion, melted down, and I almost drove off the road listening to my favorite host, a seasoned broadcast professional, commit professional suicide on air. Lynn's gift, aside from being smart, funny, and one of the station's few liberals, was that she sounded like someone you'd meet on a supermarket line. It was interesting to watch WABC scramble for a suitable replacement, trolling for other rough-hewn, New York feminist types (they even tried Bella Abzug), and eventually settling on Joy Behar.
I guess the best way to have a truly balanced discussion of issues is for a host to be, or pretend to be, impartial. I've heard Laura Ingraham and others do this by getting two or more guests or callers on the line and then stepping back to moderate. We know where she stands, and she's quite opinionated, but she'll occasionally take a back seat to the discussion so everyone can judge for themselves. If the movement toward a new fairness doctrine encourages more of this, then perhaps we can avoid the heavy-handed government intrusion into content that a legislative solution portends. But, if democratizing content will destroy the excitement and spontaniety of talk radio as an art form and a revenue-producing enterprise, then we could lose the baby along with the bathwater.
But fairness and balance are less important to the public interest than responsibility and truthfulness. The question is, whose truth will it be, and how are we to judge? Do we really want the Thought Police telling us to "play nice" in the rumpus room of ideas? Let's face it, media is biased. For that matter, so are politics, academia, religion, and any other forums in which people agree to disagree. Most of us, left and right, prefer a free market when it comes to First Amendment freedoms, and creating government oversight could open a can of worms we may someday have to eat.
I think the reason why we have such things as "conservative talk" or "liberal talk" is that many people prefer what they want to hear to what they ought to know, and they choose sides, stations, and shows in much the same way as they choose sports teams. So, while they may want to hear discussions of both sides of an issue, they are rooting for the position they support and for the hosts fighting to support it. The imbalance is necessary to make it a good fight. There's just got to be a home team. Would the largely liberal/radical audiences of WBAI and Air America accept an even-handed airing of positions they deemed politically incorrect? Ideally, a good host with strong opinions gives opposing guests or callers enough rope to hang themselves instead of humiliating them or shouting them down. I've heard seasoned hosts deal with openly bigoted callers by just letting them talk and not cutting them off. It works. The problem is that, to maintain the action and keep things moving, discussions have to be short, sweet, and punchy, effectively reducing complex issues to a series of sound bites. Radio is not a substitute for newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, nor should it be.
Having said that, I do enjoy hosts and shows that break the mold. Brian Whitman is a breath of fresh air, not only because he's liberal, but because he's funny, doesn't pontificate, and doesn't take himself too seriously. Matt Drudge is refreshing because he thinks for himself, says what he thinks, and has more leverage than many media moguls without carrying anyone's water. Curtis and Kuby are great together because, while they seem to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum, each speaks for the common person in real life terms, and Ron Kuby has an uncanny ability to explain both sides of complex issues so that anyone can understand and discuss them. And the ensemble cast of Warner Wolf, George Webber, the traffic and weather team, and frequent subs like Mark Simone, make the Morning Show, and its listeners, one big happy family and, in my opinion, the best entertainment experience in morning drive.
But point-counterpoint and odd-couple pairings like Curtis and Kuby don't always work. When WABC tried to pair the strident and sarcastic Lynn Samuels with the always gentlemanly and more poetic Barry Farber, touting them as "two scorpions in a brandy glass," Lynn lost it during a heated discussion, melted down, and I almost drove off the road listening to my favorite host, a seasoned broadcast professional, commit professional suicide on air. Lynn's gift, aside from being smart, funny, and one of the station's few liberals, was that she sounded like someone you'd meet on a supermarket line. It was interesting to watch WABC scramble for a suitable replacement, trolling for other rough-hewn, New York feminist types (they even tried Bella Abzug), and eventually settling on Joy Behar.
I guess the best way to have a truly balanced discussion of issues is for a host to be, or pretend to be, impartial. I've heard Laura Ingraham and others do this by getting two or more guests or callers on the line and then stepping back to moderate. We know where she stands, and she's quite opinionated, but she'll occasionally take a back seat to the discussion so everyone can judge for themselves. If the movement toward a new fairness doctrine encourages more of this, then perhaps we can avoid the heavy-handed government intrusion into content that a legislative solution portends. But, if democratizing content will destroy the excitement and spontaniety of talk radio as an art form and a revenue-producing enterprise, then we could lose the baby along with the bathwater.
But fairness and balance are less important to the public interest than responsibility and truthfulness. The question is, whose truth will it be, and how are we to judge? Do we really want the Thought Police telling us to "play nice" in the rumpus room of ideas? Let's face it, media is biased. For that matter, so are politics, academia, religion, and any other forums in which people agree to disagree. Most of us, left and right, prefer a free market when it comes to First Amendment freedoms, and creating government oversight could open a can of worms we may someday have to eat.
A
AKLes
Guest
barooosk said:I hate to sound overly suspicious, but the following post sounds pretty fishy. The first and only post by Kent, who calls himself a "liberal" says how much he enjoys WABC, which offers a lineup of wall to wall conservatives. He has no problem with listening to this day-long right wing infomercial because it "pervades both ends of the political spectreum"
I'd give it some credit.
After all, if you believe what some folks on a different board on this site say, I'm a kissing cousin of GWB and loathe all Liberals because they breathe air to which I am exclusively entitled.
BUT, when I lived within earshot of both KSFO and KGO, I'd take Bernie Ward over Rush anytime. They're both entertainers but I believe Bernie is the better of the two. Sure his politics come from somewhere under the spit-soaked soil of the dugout alongside left field, but, damn he's fun to listen to. He actually takes callers, works with them respectfully but without surrendering ground.
For more folks than either side likes to admit, there are a lot of people out there who just want to entertained and amused.
Andrew Kent said:But fairness and balance are less important to the public interest than responsibility and truthfulness. The question is, whose truth will it be, and how are we to judge? Do we really want the Thought Police telling us to "play nice" in the rumpus room of ideas? Let's face it, media is biased. For that matter, so are politics, academia, religion, and any other forums in which people agree to disagree. Most of us, left and right, prefer a free market when it comes to First Amendment freedoms, and creating government oversight could open a can of worms we may someday have to eat.
You buried the lead. After reading your tedious description about why you as a self identified "liberal" enjoy listening to WABC (home of non-stop conservative talk radio) you finally got around to last paragraph where you revealed the real intention of your post. We don't need a new version of "thought police" i.e. a new fairness doctrine to correct the ridiculous imbalace of political talk programming, (where you can now find 17 hours of conservative talk to every one hour of liberal talk) According to you "most of us, left and right prefer a free market when it come to first amendment freedoms." That is except if it involves detainees in Gitmo, phone calls that the government wants to tap, or Spocko's right to record hate talk on KSFO. As long as Clear Channel has the right to program as many conservative stations as they want, the first amendment is alive and well.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
As long as Clear Channel has the right to program as many conservative stations as they want,
Clear Channel has the right to program as many profitable stations as they want. As a profitable corporation, they also pay taxes on their profits. If the government would mandate that they must program an equal number of unprofitable stations, that would reduce the amount of taxes that they pay. So, those who advocate forcing broadcasters to carry unprofitable programming are simultaneously advocating a tax cut for rich corporations.
[EDIT]
[EDIT-harassing statement]
Clear Channel has the right to program as many profitable stations as they want. As a profitable corporation, they also pay taxes on their profits. If the government would mandate that they must program an equal number of unprofitable stations, that would reduce the amount of taxes that they pay. So, those who advocate forcing broadcasters to carry unprofitable programming are simultaneously advocating a tax cut for rich corporations.
[EDIT]
[EDIT-harassing statement]
A
Andrew Kent
Guest
Mr. Barooosk,
I had prepared an even more tedious reply to your last post on WABC being a "day-long, right wing infomercial," explaining the difference between the station's conservative prattle and repeated paid commentaries on John Wayne's colon, but I accidentally lost it all before I could post it. Sorry about that - it was really good. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that talk radio isn't the only venue in the marketplace of ideas. I mean, would you complain that a Religious/Contemporary Christian station doesn't invite athiests or non-Christians to share their airwaves or that hip hop music stations don't play klezmer? Stations like WABC are the way they are because that's what their listeners want. Would having more balanced programming bring in a more diverse audience in the same numbers? Perhaps, but perhaps not. But, just as God (or whoever) gave us ears to hear with, He (or she) gave us fingers with which to change stations. So we make the choices that meet our needs and interests just as programmers make decisions that they believe will meet the needs and interests of their listener base and, thus, the marketing intersts of the sponsors.
I don't know if WABC had more liberal listeners when it had more liberal hosts, and, if not, that says something, too. But, despite the "ridiculous imbalance of political talk programming," there's been no shortage of discussion, pro and con, regarding the detainees at Gitmo, tapping of phone calls, and most of the other hot button issues on which we all have strong opinions one way or the other. Remember, too, that the format is "News/Talk," so, despite all the preaching and editorializing, talk shows are structured to respond to the news of the day, and the more controversial the topic, the better. Talk radio doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and it is more than just a bully pulpit preaching to an amen chorus.
If we want to hear more liberal talk on conservative talk radio, then perhaps more liberals should call with more interesting and cogent statements of their positions. Countering Dubya's phrase-wheel "war on terror" rhetoric with trite left wing platitudes does not add to anyone's body of knowledge, and fielding well-intentioned, yet woefully naive, spokespersons like Stepford radical Cindy Sheehan does not substantially advance the liberal cause. So merely gaining more access to the broadcast day will not ensure that discussions will be any more substantive or that listeners will become any more enlightened. Remember, too, that the key cutting edge issue that decided the last presidential election was not the war, the economy, illegal immigration, or homeland security, but, rather, whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. That issue, in the midst of all the administration's smoke and mirrors and bread and circuses, was fielded by liberals. It was a great cause, but it came at a bad time.
I would love to see more balance in talk radio and deeper, more intelligent, discussions of the issues. But I'm not so sure that this can be achieved by government fiat. Even if we had a fairness doctrine in place, would a Conservative Republican FCC enforce it the same way as a Liberal Democrat FCC? And, if the rest of the broadcast media are as liberally biased as the conservatives would have us believe, then the fairness doctrine could come back to bite us.
If we want to make talk radio a healthier intellectual environment, we have to be sure that the cure won't be worse than the disease.
I had prepared an even more tedious reply to your last post on WABC being a "day-long, right wing infomercial," explaining the difference between the station's conservative prattle and repeated paid commentaries on John Wayne's colon, but I accidentally lost it all before I could post it. Sorry about that - it was really good. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that talk radio isn't the only venue in the marketplace of ideas. I mean, would you complain that a Religious/Contemporary Christian station doesn't invite athiests or non-Christians to share their airwaves or that hip hop music stations don't play klezmer? Stations like WABC are the way they are because that's what their listeners want. Would having more balanced programming bring in a more diverse audience in the same numbers? Perhaps, but perhaps not. But, just as God (or whoever) gave us ears to hear with, He (or she) gave us fingers with which to change stations. So we make the choices that meet our needs and interests just as programmers make decisions that they believe will meet the needs and interests of their listener base and, thus, the marketing intersts of the sponsors.
I don't know if WABC had more liberal listeners when it had more liberal hosts, and, if not, that says something, too. But, despite the "ridiculous imbalance of political talk programming," there's been no shortage of discussion, pro and con, regarding the detainees at Gitmo, tapping of phone calls, and most of the other hot button issues on which we all have strong opinions one way or the other. Remember, too, that the format is "News/Talk," so, despite all the preaching and editorializing, talk shows are structured to respond to the news of the day, and the more controversial the topic, the better. Talk radio doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and it is more than just a bully pulpit preaching to an amen chorus.
If we want to hear more liberal talk on conservative talk radio, then perhaps more liberals should call with more interesting and cogent statements of their positions. Countering Dubya's phrase-wheel "war on terror" rhetoric with trite left wing platitudes does not add to anyone's body of knowledge, and fielding well-intentioned, yet woefully naive, spokespersons like Stepford radical Cindy Sheehan does not substantially advance the liberal cause. So merely gaining more access to the broadcast day will not ensure that discussions will be any more substantive or that listeners will become any more enlightened. Remember, too, that the key cutting edge issue that decided the last presidential election was not the war, the economy, illegal immigration, or homeland security, but, rather, whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. That issue, in the midst of all the administration's smoke and mirrors and bread and circuses, was fielded by liberals. It was a great cause, but it came at a bad time.
I would love to see more balance in talk radio and deeper, more intelligent, discussions of the issues. But I'm not so sure that this can be achieved by government fiat. Even if we had a fairness doctrine in place, would a Conservative Republican FCC enforce it the same way as a Liberal Democrat FCC? And, if the rest of the broadcast media are as liberally biased as the conservatives would have us believe, then the fairness doctrine could come back to bite us.
If we want to make talk radio a healthier intellectual environment, we have to be sure that the cure won't be worse than the disease.
Andrew Kent said:would you complain that a Religious/Contemporary Christian station doesn't invite athiests or non-Christians to share their airwaves or that hip hop music stations don't play klezmer? Stations like WABC are the way they are because that's what their listeners want.
I don't object to WABC maintaining its conservative format. I just don't know how someone who claims they are a liberal can actually listen to it. Unless that person is working for Mediamatters.com. I listen to KFI and KABC here in Los Angeles but have to take it small doses.
I don't know if WABC had more liberal listeners when it had more liberal hosts, and, if not, that says something, too.
I don't know how my angels can dance on head of pin, but I do know that WABC in New York had more liberal listeners when they had liberal hosts. Just like KABC had more liberal listeners when Michael Jackson did afternoon drive.
the format is "News/Talk," so, despite all the preaching and editorializing, talk shows are structured to respond to the news of the day, and the more controversial the topic, the better. Talk radio doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and it is more than just a bully pulpit preaching to an amen chorus. If we want to hear more liberal talk on conservative talk radio, then perhaps more liberals should call with more interesting and cogent statements of their positions.
I don't get your point. Why would I want to listen to Sean Hannity go on for three hours about why the war in Iraq is such a good thing, why he such a great American, and why liberals just don't get it. So I can listen to the one liberal caller he gets every hour be taunted by him. I'd rather have maggots crawling up my arm.
Even if we had a fairness doctrine in place, would a Conservative Republican FCC enforce it the same way as a Liberal Democrat FCC? And, if the rest of the broadcast media are as liberally biased as the conservatives would have us believe, then the fairness doctrine could come back to bite us.
If the Congress passes a new Fairness Doctrine, the FCC will be reguired to enforce it. If they don't the Congress could implement their own enforcement provisions. Since conservative have a distinct advantage as commentators on cable news channels, (there's one liberal commentator with a regular show -- Keith Olbermann. There are at least seven conservative commentators. Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, and Glen Beck.) They can bite away.
Talk radio doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and it is more than just a bully pulpit preaching to an amen chorus.
If only....
.If we want to hear more liberal talk on conservative talk radio, then perhaps more liberals should call with more interesting and cogent statements of their positions.
Not going to happen with hosts' microphones that can override the caller, dump buttons, and screening. As Limbaugh said, it is the caller's job (in post-1988 conservative radio) to make the host look good.
At least with the old style confrontational radio of the 70s and 80s (examples of which would be Bob Grant in his heyday, Joe Pyne, Alan Berg, early Neil Rogers, Bob Lassiter and the like) there were liberal hosts arguing with conservative callers and vice versa. This particular style of talk was created to give conservatives a "cocoon" where they feel safe and always win, no matter what's going on in the outside world. In those days call screening was deliberately done with a light touch to encourage the hostile opinion, and technology was such that the host couldn't mute callers and go into a triumphant, unanswered monologue, at least without telling the board op over the aire. A loud "clunk" was heard if the host hung up on the caller, telling everybody who lost the fight.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Why would I want to listen to Sean Hannity go on for three hours about why the war in Iraq is such a good thing, why he such a great American, and why liberals just don't get it.
I don't know why you'd want to do that. I assume that you wouldn't want to do that. So change the freakin' station to something else! No one is forcing you to tune in Sean Hannity's program.
If you want the liberal equivalent of Sean Hannity on for three hours talking about how America should surrender to the terrorists and let them win the war, put together an audition tape and get yourself a job as a talk show host yourself. Or, go find enough sponsors and buy yourself time on a brokered station. If your brokered show attracts an audience, you'll get picked up by a regular radio station soon enough. If you're sincere about wanting to get your side of the debate on the radio, there are things you can do to make that happen.
No law can create talented and entertaining talk show hosts out of thin air. No matter what the law says about putting other points of view on the air, the ones that the audience wants to listen to will get listened to, and the ones that the audience wants to ignore will be ignored. And since there seems to be a genuine dearth of both entertaining liberal talk hosts and liberal talk radio listeners, the only thing the introduction of Fairness Doctrine II, The Sequel will accomplish is to knock all political talk off of the radio.
Then more people will have to get their news from blogs.
It just hit me. I just realized why a blogger is advocating knocking political talk radio off the air and thereby forcing news/talk fans to switch over to blogs. That's a clever plan. Who suggested it to you?
I don't know why you'd want to do that. I assume that you wouldn't want to do that. So change the freakin' station to something else! No one is forcing you to tune in Sean Hannity's program.
If you want the liberal equivalent of Sean Hannity on for three hours talking about how America should surrender to the terrorists and let them win the war, put together an audition tape and get yourself a job as a talk show host yourself. Or, go find enough sponsors and buy yourself time on a brokered station. If your brokered show attracts an audience, you'll get picked up by a regular radio station soon enough. If you're sincere about wanting to get your side of the debate on the radio, there are things you can do to make that happen.
No law can create talented and entertaining talk show hosts out of thin air. No matter what the law says about putting other points of view on the air, the ones that the audience wants to listen to will get listened to, and the ones that the audience wants to ignore will be ignored. And since there seems to be a genuine dearth of both entertaining liberal talk hosts and liberal talk radio listeners, the only thing the introduction of Fairness Doctrine II, The Sequel will accomplish is to knock all political talk off of the radio.
Then more people will have to get their news from blogs.
It just hit me. I just realized why a blogger is advocating knocking political talk radio off the air and thereby forcing news/talk fans to switch over to blogs. That's a clever plan. Who suggested it to you?
Great point Radio Realist. People keep saying that Radio Air Waves are different than cable TV, newspapers, the internet. Somehow RADIO has to exist to fullfill the public good...but those other things do not. I am not saying the other ways of getting info out should be regulated by congress either. I am just trying to point out that with all these forms of communication that we did not have 30 years ago (newspapers we did have) why is it Radio is the one regulated?
Barooosk says:
No you don't. You assume that. But in the world of radio, we don't have the ability to look at ratings and say if a listeners is liberal or conservative. There would be no way for you to know that your assumption is true. But PD's look at overall ratings. I have hired more liberals at WABC than any other PD in the stations history. Sadly, most of them did not work, but it is not for a lack of trying. I am not sure what liberal hosts you are talking about on WABC...but trust me...if they got ratings they would have survived.
Barooosk says:
You keep leaving out Chris Mathews on MSNBC...
All of these hosts have been hired since 1996. The big companies that hired them want to get ratings. You forget to list all the shows they tried out, both liberal and conservative that also failed. Shows come and go...but those that last are the ones viewers want to watch, or liberals want to listen to. You can't make the claim that liberal TV commentators have not been given a chance!
Barooosk says:
I don't know how my angels can dance on head of pin, but I do know that WABC in New York had more liberal listeners when they had liberal hosts. Just like KABC had more liberal listeners when Michael Jackson did afternoon drive.
No you don't. You assume that. But in the world of radio, we don't have the ability to look at ratings and say if a listeners is liberal or conservative. There would be no way for you to know that your assumption is true. But PD's look at overall ratings. I have hired more liberals at WABC than any other PD in the stations history. Sadly, most of them did not work, but it is not for a lack of trying. I am not sure what liberal hosts you are talking about on WABC...but trust me...if they got ratings they would have survived.
Barooosk says:
If the Congress passes a new Fairness Doctrine, the FCC will be reguired to enforce it. If they don't the Congress could implement their own enforcement provisions. Since conservative have a distinct advantage as commentators on cable news channels, (there's one liberal commentator with a regular show -- Keith Olbermann. There are at least seven conservative commentators. Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, and Glen Beck.) They can bite away.
You keep leaving out Chris Mathews on MSNBC...
All of these hosts have been hired since 1996. The big companies that hired them want to get ratings. You forget to list all the shows they tried out, both liberal and conservative that also failed. Shows come and go...but those that last are the ones viewers want to watch, or liberals want to listen to. You can't make the claim that liberal TV commentators have not been given a chance!
E
evnlee
Guest
Andrew Kent said:But, just as God (or whoever) gave us ears to hear with, He (or she) gave us fingers with which to change stations. So we make the choices that meet our needs and interests just as programmers make decisions that they believe will meet the needs and interests of their listener base and, thus, the marketing intersts of the sponsors.
If we want to hear more liberal talk on conservative talk radio, then perhaps more liberals should call with more interesting and cogent statements of their positions. Countering Dubya's phrase-wheel "war on terror" rhetoric with trite left wing platitudes does not add to anyone's body of knowledge.
If we want to make talk radio a healthier intellectual environment, we have to be sure that the cure won't be worse than the disease.
Amen, You should be applauded, not only for your concise discussion, but for your courageous admission that as a liberal, you are entertained by conservative talk.
People like Baroosk HATE Hannity. In order to HATE someone to that extent, you have to listen to them. The more bent someone is about a particular host, the more they listen. This would explain why the most popular hosts are also the most hated ( Limbaugh and Hannity ) when other hosts ( Savage and Beck ) can say more outrageous things and not catch as much heat.
Kudos!
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.