Fairness Doctrine

[Atlanta Listener]

Hmmm, no takers on the Fairness Doctrine, eh? Baaaaa.

I have a question, if this "fairness" doctrine is imposed on us.  I wonder how Atlanta radio would shape up?  WSB and GST would definitely be a target, however.... what about WAOK and other "progressive" stations, especially several FM morning shows?  They are by no means "fair" either.  It would definitely be interesting.

The government always thinks it knows best, if that is the case, then why do they tend to screw up almost everything they are involved in?

Capitalism has stood the test of time while other forms have fallen.  If you have a product that is successful, such as Rush, Hannity, etc... then people will listen, advertisers will invest, etc...  If you have a show that sucks, then people will not listen, advertisers will leave, and the show will end.  If Rush or Hannity, or any other host, such as Warren Balentine, Mike Baisden, etc... started to have crap for shows, then the listeners will leave and find something else and they will cease at some point.  How is this not fair?  People vote with their feet, ears, and spending dollars. 

Liberty is a thing of the past.

Love the boards by the way.

Bring on the discussion.

 

[hail2theorange]

I'm sure I'll be accused of over-generalizing here, but I'll take a swing at responding...

First, the premise of the "Fairness" doctrine is just that... it is an attempt at making the "Public Airwaves" a fair place -- note that it's not called the free enterprise doctrine or the success doctrine -- the government does not care if a company makes a profit... indeed, they tend to try to punish those that do by their insipid graduated tax structure. So, the government, then maintains that the public airwaves belong to "The People" (that's a code word for the kind of people that are currently in power), so should not present a single side of any argument, especially when it is contrary to the belief of "The People" (see definition above).

Second, it is doubtful that the fairness doctrine would have much affect on left-leaning banter on shows that are primarily music-oriented. This is because when a right-leaning person complains about things like this, they are characterized as "whiners" and nobody likes a whiner.

It is also doubtful that a left-leaning talk station could survive in any locale that is not currently supporting such a show -- with rare exception (see Randi Rhodes), lefty hosts tend to argue and shoot the messenger more than discuss and argue the message (yes, I know that is a generalization, but generalizations are just that because they tend to ring true). In order to succeed, a good talker has to be able to argue their points, admit when their side screws up (Sean Hannity might be an exception here, he seems to always take the party line) and most importantly, not take themselves too seriously and shut down/alienate those that disagree with them.

If the fairness doctrine is resurrected, I would anticipate that there would be fewer syndicated talk shows, more local-flavor talk shows that tend to invoke callers from both sides of the spectrum and allow the host to not necessarily take sides. There will probably be more non-political call-in shows on the AM dial -- sports/home/garden/finance and maybe some more news/sports/weather kinds of programming as well.

I would think that the fairness doctrine would be a boon to satellite radio, since Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved, Boortz, etc. would be outside the control of the Feds when they are no longer on the public airwaves.

 

[agentUrge]

Personally, I don't think it would work very well because, as hail2theorange essentially said, the success of a station that leans in one direction or another is really dependent on the locale. Thus, Air America didn't do well here because talk radio in Atlanta is pretty much dominated by the right (with exception to NPR) but up in Asheville, left leaning programming does fairly well (as I recently learned).

I have to say this though, the only difference between left-wing or right-wing talk radio is the viewpoint. The methods are the same, and the personalities are the same Rush, Hanity, Rhode, Ed Schultz...they all take the same approach: aggressive..standoffish, at times. Same same.

Either way, I have a hard time seeing it work...but if it opens up local talk radio and pushed syndicated content out...I'm all for it.

 

[Mr_Winston-Salem]

This will also impact religious broadcasters, like 91.5 WWEV. Think of the thousands of translators to spread religious programing. A new translator signed-on recently at 90.5 in Gwinnett County (near Mall of Georgia).

 

[Nate Wesley]

Liberty is a thing of the past.

You pretty much told us all we need to guess about your intellect with this part here.

Now, back to freerepublic.com.

 

[taylorengineer]

Liberty is a thing of the past.

You pretty much told us all we need to guess about your intellect with this part here.

Now, back to freerepublic.com.

So what are you trying to say here Nate?
That you feel intellectually "superior" or "enlightened" is elitist snobbery.
So you think any of us are truly free? Then make your case.
I would like to hear one logical argument proving the Fairness Doctrine will lead to more "liberty and freedom" for any human being on this planet.

 

[Atlanta Listener]

Liberty is a thing of the past.

You pretty much told us all we need to guess about your intellect with this part here.

Now, back to freerepublic.com.

Way to get involved with the discussion. Instead of attempting a slash and burn attack, why don't you discuss the issue? Talking points are cheap and easy. Discussion has a greater value.

Thanks for the info about freerepublic.com, are you a member? If not, I will look you up over at www.democraticunderground.com

This is a legitimate radio-based discussion that has strong opinions on both sides. Reducing yourself to cheap theatrical attacks only undermines your position on the issue.

 

[The Beave]

One thing talk hosts are saying (off of the air) and I said it the other day in

RE: The fairness docterine -

"If politics was taken seriously as a hate crime... There would be alot of people going to prison."

 

[DToTheJ]

Thanks for the info about freerepublic.com, are you a member? If not, I will look you up over at www.democraticunderground.com

I've seen some interesting threads on there. But what's the deal that you can't even do so much as send a message to another member without donating to the website?

 

[kyscott]

Liberty is a thing of the past.

You pretty much told us all we need to guess about your intellect with this part here.

Now, back to freerepublic.com.

You did the same, Nate. Thanks for removing all doubt.

 

[Nate Wesley]

So what are you trying to say here Nate?
That you feel intellectually "superior" or "enlightened" is elitist snobbery.

I may not be intellectually superior to you, but I'm smart enough not to say something as stupidly hyperbolic as "liberty is a thing of the past".

So you think any of us are truly free? Then make your case.
I would like to hear one logical argument proving the Fairness Doctrine will lead to more "liberty and freedom" for any human being on this planet.

You'll be waiting a long time for that argument. Even if I wanted the Fairness Doctrine back (which I never said I did), good luck getting the votes from even a Democratic-controlled Congress. There are much bigger fish to fry than bastardizing the law to shut up Sean Hannity. And considering its Democrats who now dare to defend your personal freedoms (remember when Republicans used to do that?), it's reasonable to assume some might laugh at signing off on such legislation.

 

[Nate Wesley]

Way to get involved with the discussion. Instead of attempting a slash and burn attack, why don't you discuss the issue? Talking points are cheap and easy. Discussion has a greater value.

This is a legitimate radio-based discussion that has strong opinions on both sides. Reducing yourself to cheap theatrical attacks only undermines your position on the issue.

You weren't looking for a noble minded discussion; you were fishing for someone to agree with you. I read your words and quickly concluded that you had already made up your mind. "The fairness doctrine would be 'imposed' on us", "The gub'mint always screws things up", "Liberty is a thing of the past".

That last one deserved a quick rebuke for the utter corniness of it and not because of my divergent leanings. Do you have state entities monitoring and censoring your speech and media usage? Are you a slave kept in line by threat of horsewhip? No? Then [EDIT]non-substantive thoughts of liberty, because either you're enjoying enough of it to respond, or you're too dull to know what it really is.

[EDIT-inflammatory]

 

[Tom Wells]

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.

 

[ClarkKent]

Am I the only one who sees that this topic stopped being about Atlanta long ago?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Am I the only one who sees that this topic stopped being about Atlanta long ago?

Wrong question.

I went back and read the first message which kicked off this thread.

This topic was never really about Atlanta.

The original message set about to define how community, law and politics have to be, said in such a way that the writer indicated: "I have a chip on my shoulder about these issues. Anybody here man enough to take me on?"

I suspect that half the people reading this forum were not yet born when the "Fairness Doctrine" of the FCC was in place. There is no drive to bring back the original Fairness Doctrine. There are those who would pretend to restore some sanity to our world by imposing a new-fangled Federal policy in which one political group would try to do harm to the vitality of another political group, and hide behind "a historical Fairness" claim.

We are quivering in our boots, watching the economy act like it is going to melt down. My observation (right or wrong) is that people who seem to understand what is happening are pointing out that we over-did deregulation, and the people in what we call the "finance industry" gambled too recklessly with the economic machinery that makes our civilization run.

That parallels what many of us say about broadcasting: We over-did deregulation of broadcasting and we are watching an industry act like it is going to melt down.

Can that be said of broadcasting in Atlanta? Probably.

 

[seabass]

Am I the only one who sees that this topic stopped being about Atlanta long ago?

I suspect that half the people reading this forum were not yet born when the "Fairness Doctrine" of the FCC was in place. There is no drive to bring back the original Fairness Doctrine. There are those who would pretend to restore some sanity to our world by imposing a new-fangled Federal policy in which one political group would try to do harm to the vitality of another political group, and hide behind "a historical Fairness" claim.

I read a news report from WBAL in Baltimore where they interviewed Michael Copps.

FTA:

Commissioner Michael Copps said radio and TV need to be open and covering "a lot of local events," but that the classical requirement that stations must devote equal time to opposing viewpoints probably won't return.


So...good news! No Fairness Doctrine!

Now the not so good news. Looks like FD has a new name. Localism rules.

Perhaps some of you can understand and intelligently discuss the possibilites for regulatory mischief in the coming "localism" and what it means for syndicated shows, it's impact on conservative talk shows, many of which are syndicated due to their popularity and cost effectiveness for even flush AM and FM signals, and the economic burden placed on all stations forced to employ local shows around the clock.

Who decides what is local? What events does Mr. Copps imagine should radio and TV be covering? What does this mean for TV and it's desire to shed increasingly less profitable local news shows? Will the government benignly suggest or force their version of "fair"...er..."localism?" How will stations be impacted financially by rules forcing them to relocate their studios to the city of license? Would Cox, for example, have to spread some of it's studios out to Gainesville and Athens?

Also, read today's front page post here about the AG of NY trying to keep Arbitron publishing PPM results in that state due to complaints from broadcasters who did better under the inaccurate paper diary system. How can we have a transparent, electronic, real-time rating system of integrity if it is distorted by weighing the results politically?

I think that the Fairness Doctrine issue is a misdirection as "localism" has replaced it as the more politically expedient way to get the same result, and I am concerned, but I could be wrong. I look forward to your thoughts on these government trends toward solutions hunting for actual problems.

 

[TheRealOtherNeil]

I have been holding off on this discussion to see where it went. I am pleasantly surprised at the tone, well done.

In investigating the Fairness Doctrine I have found only a few instances where the Dems want it back, mostly Dennis Kucinich. Every other article the right-wing radio hosts’ saying that it is coming back. Why would they say that? Maybe to inflame listeners and to get them to keep listening. An old sales technique is fear of loss. You must act now before it’s too late. Listen to Hannity before he goes away.

The reality of the situation is the radio is jammed up with right-wing talkers all spewing the same thing. In a free market society, I am okay with this. I would like to hear my point of view but as has been proven, the ratings won’t be there. In addition, I would like to hear these hosts take more calls with my point of view but when they do, the hosts often mock and dismiss the caller. It’s like trying to swim laps when it’s free swim at the community pool. Why bother.

In the early part of this century, people have other places to get their news and opinions. I get my news from: The Daily Show, Colbert Report, MSNBC, Keith Olbermann and Huffington Post. (Don’t flame me for my views; I’d didn’t say these were the best or most accurate sources, just where I get MY news).

The Fairness Doctrine will not work in this day and age. Case closed.

 

[RoddyFreeman]

I agree that the Fairness Doctrine's return is unlikely although Kucinich has not been the only Democrat to talk about it. Diane Feinstein and others have also. Neil is probably correct that the threat of its return has become an entertainment mechanism on conservative talk shows. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would spell the real end of AM radio.

Regarding the NY case, Andrew Cuomo, the attorney general, tried to block Arbitron from releasing the PPM numbers a few weeks ago, but it didn't work. Arbitron has already released them. Today's blurb said Arbitron tried to prevent the case from going forward but didn't succeed. Nevertheless, Arbitron is going to win this case. The PPM is something for which the advertising industry has been clamoring for years. Once media buyers are using PPM, there's no way it's going away. Anybody can sue anyone, and the NY lawsuit is politically motivated.

 

[RTibbs]

Maybe fear of loss is the motive or maybe it is just another fine way to pit the Dems as bad guys whose goal is to control big business. Although I lean right I like Rush more for his theatrics than the droning message. Hannity I tune into during commercials or looking for traffic. I do enjoy Michael Medved on WGKA though. He even dedicates one day a week I believe for people to call and disagree with him.

Plus I do not get the Fairness Doctrine. Who gets to decide the right or left of a shows politics and the hours dedicated to such? IF Mayhem in the AM is on and Chris and Nick take a conservative position and Steak goes left does it count as being a conservative show since it is 2 against 1 and the 1 liberal opinion is such an elitist, albeit a capitalist and probably one not in favor of the redistribution of wealth.

Also I get the only news that counts from the AJC Radio Blog.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

The Fairness Doctrine will not work in this day and age. Case closed.

Not so fast, my man. You stand on the sideline and watch us work, then you come to the table and compliment us for doing a fine job, and then you pronounce the topic, DEAD, DONE DEAL.

As a technical point, I will grant you that "The Fairness Doctrine" as it was, and as some people claim it would be today, is probably dead.

That leaves us with this issue to settle: Can we as a society tolerate the status quo in radio content, and if we were to conclude that it is intolerable then we could begin crafting a new mechanism to right the wrong.... if we find there is a wrong.

It took us a lot of years, but we as a society finally decided slavery was not a good thing. Getting it behind us has been a nasty, ugly struggle.

Same observation about civil rights and segregation.

Then we decided the the public school system is NOT the private domain of conservative evangelical Christians... that the schools are also here to serve the liberal Christians, the Catholics, the Jews, the Muslims, and those who choose to have no religious position, or those who choose not to disclose what is ticking inside them.

According to today's paper we are still struggling to balance how we deal with evolution versus those who find evolution in conflict with their personal values.

We are even on our way as a society to coming to terms with the presence and reality of people among us who are gay.

We some time ago decided that the communication techniques of the K.K.K. would have to be roped in and turned down a few notches before they could be considered functioning members of our culture.

Here is the debate as I see it today: Is talk radio today as exemplified by Rush, Hannity, Boortz, Martha Zoller, Savage and others a perfectly healthy part of free speech and our culture, or is it as corrosive as those behaviors which we call anti-semitic, white supremacy, etc.

Society has been raising questions about what the language of some of today's music will do to the next generation.

Society has been raising questions about violent movies and violent video games.

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?

I grew up in a very straight-laced, Fundamentalist dominated community. It has been a long, long struggle for me to discover some of the communication outlets that you say are your choices, Neil. It has taken a long time for me to become comfortable watching Bill Moyers Journal. Just like everyone else, I want MY freedom of communication and expression as much as the next guy.

But we have to have some orderly, respectful, thoughtful discussion of what ingredients fit the American recipe, and which ingredients are foul, unhealthy or distasteful. So. I'm not sure the discussion of the Fairness Doctrine is ready to be pronounced dead by the coroner.