Fairness Doctrine

[hail2theorange]

***snip***

If talk radio as we know it today continues for the next 40 years, and two generations of youngsters grow up hearing that kind of radio from the time they are strapped into child restraint seats by their dads, and hear dad up front cheering his favorite talk show host the same way he whoops and hollers while listening to a football game, do we have any concerns about that?

***snip***

Can I take a little liberty with your synopsis?

If urban radio as we know it today continues for the next 40 years, and two generations of youngsters grow up hearing that kind of radio from the time they are strapped into child restraint seats by their dads, and hear dad up front singing along with the gangsta rap the same way he whoops and hollers while listening to a football game, do we have any concerns about that?

 

[franksandhotdogs]

I could support a reinstatement of the old version of the Fairness Doctrine, but have little faith in the fairness
of anything that might be devised in today's divisive atmosphere.

Who would do the 12 hours of conservatism on Air America?

(No one is forced to listen to anything.)

 

[Atlanta Listener]

Thank you to those that have responded, I am glad to see this issue being discussed. I enjoy various points of view and I rarely assume that my views are always superior to others.

Yes, as noted about the tone of my initial post, I am against it and I am TRULY interested to see how it would play out in the Atlanta radio world. I listen to various stations and hear the biased discussions on both sides. It just seems that the overall goal of the fairness doctrine is to curb or reign in talk radio, particularly conservative talk radio. No matter how you name it, code it, etc... the main goal is to silence opposition.

Again, back to ATL, I can't fathom "liberal talking points/shows" on many of the AM talkers, however, several of these popular fm and progressive stations would rather take a fine or go off of the air before they provide any conservative points of view.

Would all stations be required to adhere to the doctrine, or just "talk" stations? Many fm morning / afternoon shows have clearly stated positions on politics and other issues. Would this be balanced by an opposing view?


I feel, (conservative or not) this is an effort for the government to control the message / media in one form or another. What is to say TV isn't next? Aren't those airwaves government owned as well?

To the poster who mentioned religious radio, how will that play out? Do we start requiring that all religions get equal air time?

Bottom line, it is a double edge sword, and if this is enacted, all sides should be enforced, not just against big bad right wing media, and where to you stop enforcing “balance” or “fairness”. Who would define “fairness”?

Slippery slope with no bottom.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE DISCUSSION

 

[jabba17]

***snip***

If talk radio as we know it today continues for the next 40 years, and two generations of youngsters grow up hearing that kind of radio from the time they are strapped into child restraint seats by their dads, and hear dad up front cheering his favorite talk show host the same way he whoops and hollers while listening to a football game, do we have any concerns about that?

***snip***

Can I take a little liberty with your synopsis?

If urban radio as we know it today continues for the next 40 years, and two generations of youngsters grow up hearing that kind of radio from the time they are strapped into child restraint seats by their dads, and hear dad up front singing along with the gangsta rap the same way he whoops and hollers while listening to a football game, do we have any concerns about that?

I think the difficulty here is trying to talk about this while attempting to step outside your worldview to be as neutral as possible, and also understanding that however much you think you are right, some of those on the "other side" may consider you to be fundamentally, morally WRONG. You can call it intolerant if you like, but it won't make the problem go away. And, most importantly, it goes both ways. Both sides have had their excesses in the past AND present.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

After I composed my somewhat over-the-top post just before 9 o'clock last night, I said to myself: "Self, you have left your self wide open on that one. You're going to get 'freedom of speech' shoved down your throat by someone." Thank you for being gracious in the responses.

This is a tough issue to deal with. Let's compare it to gun issue. The constitution protects some kind of rights to gun access for the masses. We quibble over the details. But even the most ardent of gun-rights advocates (I assume) agree that 8 year old kids should not assume they are guaranteed the freedom to carry AK47s to third grade with them every day. Somewhere there is an edge to the cliff that we do not want to fall off.

The circumstances at the time of our constitution were that citizens in the colonies were tired of having to watch their mouth and their pen and their printing press when they spoke of the injustice of King George. The fans of today conservative talk-radio programs can make the argument that the power-house broadcasters probably aren't any more abrasive than were the critics of King George in the 1700's and that is what the founding fathers were out to protect.

Is anybody interest in listening to three hours of George Will every day? Does George really have three hours worth of material he could share? There are other strong, thinking conservatives who are somehow different than the power-house crowd that we hear daily on radio. I would propose to you that we can define the difference very precisely: NAME CALLING. The power house broadcasters are considered 'entertaining' because they come up with verbal caricatures of people. It's never Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.... it's always, day after day: Dingy Harry. Feminatzis, etc.

I'm just a little bit older than dirt and I was in a management position during a portion of the "original fairness" doctrine. The idea of balancing conservative vs. liberal is not what I remember about the Fairness Doctrine. What I remembers is the responsibility of the broadcaster to recognize "an on-air attack" against an individual and pro-actively locate the attacked person and advise them that equal time for rebuttal would be made available to them. I once had to track down Madelyn Murry O'Hare and offer her time to respond to a Fundamentalist pastor's very personal attacks.

The people who are making noise today about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine do seem to envision something a bit more invasive this time around. They may be bargaining. The may have to settle for less.

Now, back to my Third grader not getting to take his AK47 to school every day. If his daddy wants to take him to an appropriate shooting range after school or on weekends, knock your self out. Teach him how to clean the thing. Teach him how to store it safely. (I'm not sure I want to live next door to him ;D )

If a station wants to line up a day full of conservative commentators, go for it. But somehow we have to describe what constitutes "unacceptable, inflammatory attack words" that would trigger a return to third grade for vocabulary training. Use language that a daily newspaper would allow on their op-ed page. Use language that a debate club would use. Use language that lawyers would use in summing up a trial. But please, find a way to eliminate the essence of "hog entrails" on the radio during the hours children may be listing.

 

[hail2theorange]

***snip***

If talk radio as we know it today continues for the next 40 years, and two generations of youngsters grow up hearing that kind of radio from the time they are strapped into child restraint seats by their dads, and hear dad up front cheering his favorite talk show host the same way he whoops and hollers while listening to a football game, do we have any concerns about that?

***snip***

Can I take a little liberty with your synopsis?

If urban radio as we know it today continues for the next 40 years, and two generations of youngsters grow up hearing that kind of radio from the time they are strapped into child restraint seats by their dads, and hear dad up front singing along with the gangsta rap the same way he whoops and hollers while listening to a football game, do we have any concerns about that?

I think the difficulty here is trying to talk about this while attempting to step outside your worldview to be as neutral as possible, and also understanding that however much you think you are right, some of those on the "other side" may consider you to be fundamentally, morally WRONG. You can call it intolerant if you like, but it won't make the problem go away. And, most importantly, it goes both ways. Both sides have had their excesses in the past AND present.

I don't disagree with your assessment at all... I was merely attempting to point out that there are already different viewpoints on the airwaves today in metro Atlanta... some are upfront about their pov, such as Boortz, Hannity, etc. -- some are more subtle, with the jabs during drive-time chatter between the songs, and still others are even more subtle simply with their song selections. The initial poster was inferring that with the constant overload of conservative talk being fed to our children, that they were going to grow up to be little Rush Limbaugh robots. Generally, I think that depending on overall parenting skills, kids would tend to either agree or disagree with their parents' politics regardless of what was on the radio. By the time a kid is old enough to begin grasping political concepts, he's either watching his personal DVD in the back seat or listening to his Ipod.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The initial poster was inferring that with the constant overload of conservative talk being fed to our children, that they were going to grow up to be little Rush Limbaugh robots. Generally, I think that depending on overall parenting skills, kids would tend to either agree or disagree with their parents' politics regardless of what was on the radio. By the time a kid is old enough to begin grasping political concepts, he's either watching his personal DVD in the back seat or listening to his Ipod.

One of the reasons there are so many different opinions is that we tend to see the world from where WE are, and where we have been.

What is your scenario for children who do not grow up in the affluence of personal DVD players and iPods?


.

 

[hail2theorange]

The initial poster was inferring that with the constant overload of conservative talk being fed to our children, that they were going to grow up to be little Rush Limbaugh robots. Generally, I think that depending on overall parenting skills, kids would tend to either agree or disagree with their parents' politics regardless of what was on the radio. By the time a kid is old enough to begin grasping political concepts, he's either watching his personal DVD in the back seat or listening to his Ipod.

One of the reasons there are so many different opinions is that we tend to see the world from where WE are, and where we have been.

What is your scenario for children who do not grow up in the affluence of personal DVD players and iPods?


.

I was really just making the point that I don't think it matters that much what Mom & Dad have on the radio. If the parents are die-hard Rush fans, then the kid is going to be getting a constant diet of his show and corresponding viewpoints regardless of whether the station is required to have an equal amount of Mike Malloy or Alan Colmes(sp?). I know that growing up in northern Illinois, I remember my Dad listening to the Cubs all the time -- the only effect that had on me was making me a White Sox fan.

 

[TheRealOtherNeil]

The initial poster was inferring that with the constant overload of conservative talk being fed to our children, that they were going to grow up to be little Rush Limbaugh robots. Generally, I think that depending on overall parenting skills, kids would tend to either agree or disagree with their parents' politics regardless of what was on the radio. By the time a kid is old enough to begin grasping political concepts, he's either watching his personal DVD in the back seat or listening to his Ipod.

One of the reasons there are so many different opinions is that we tend to see the world from where WE are, and where we have been.

What is your scenario for children who do not grow up in the affluence of personal DVD players and iPods?


.

I remember my Dad listening to the Cubs all the time -- the only effect that had on me was making me a White Sox fan.

I knew I didn't like you for a reason.

Goat Rodeo brought up an interesting point about kids in the car listening to Rush coz mom and pops do. When was the last time a kid did exactly what mom and dad did? Especially during their teenage years. My mom listened to WGN in the car; I rebelled and listened to the Loop, Steve and Garry and eventually WXRT. (Orange knows what I mean.)

If parents think their kids will be "ditto heads" because they listen to him, they are sadly mistaken. I was affected politically by: my surroundings, fellow high schoolers, my own sense of right and wrong (I am right, the rest of you are wrong) and my internal compass more so that the "conservative dems" in Chicago my mother or any adults. I certainly didn't take my cues from radio personalities, though I did want to be either John "Records" Landecker or Bob Stroud. (Again, Orange knows what I am talking about.)

 

[hail2theorange]

The initial poster was inferring that with the constant overload of conservative talk being fed to our children, that they were going to grow up to be little Rush Limbaugh robots. Generally, I think that depending on overall parenting skills, kids would tend to either agree or disagree with their parents' politics regardless of what was on the radio. By the time a kid is old enough to begin grasping political concepts, he's either watching his personal DVD in the back seat or listening to his Ipod.

One of the reasons there are so many different opinions is that we tend to see the world from where WE are, and where we have been.

What is your scenario for children who do not grow up in the affluence of personal DVD players and iPods?


.

I remember my Dad listening to the Cubs all the time -- the only effect that had on me was making me a White Sox fan.

I knew I didn't like you for a reason.

Goat Rodeo brought up an interesting point about kids in the car listening to Rush coz mom and pops do. When was the last time a kid did exactly what mom and dad did? Especially during their teenage years. My mom listened to WGN in the car; I rebelled and listened to the Loop, Steve and Garry and eventually WXRT. (Orange knows what I mean.)

If parents think their kids will be "ditto heads" because they listen to him, they are sadly mistaken. I was affected politically by: my surroundings, fellow high schoolers, my own sense of right and wrong (I am right, the rest of you are wrong) and my internal compass more so that the "conservative dems" in Chicago my mother or any adults. I certainly didn't take my cues from radio personalities, though I did want to be either John "Records" Landecker or Bob Stroud. (Again, Orange knows what I am talking about.)

I think that's pretty much what I was trying to say... maybe just not so directly. Wasn't just the Cubs -- he was always listening to Wally Phillips on WGN and I was listening to Larry Lujack, Bob Sirot(sp?) on WLS and Bob Dearborn on WCFL -- think I might have a few years on you.

 

[jabba17]

The woman who drove carpool when I was in high school (early 80s) had a thing for WABE/NPR...even then, in 8th grade, I thought, "wow, these guys sure do hate RONALD REAGAN...what's up with that? Maybe I'll look into this Reagan guy."

Maybe GRC has (half) a point...H2TO has the other half...pump enough obnoxious partisan invective and the kids will start underdoggin' for the other guy. Maybe I need to turn off Boortz, Rush, Zoller, et al. when my daughter hits her teen years and put on Air America (satellite, baby!), Randi Rhodes, or NPR. Worked for me.