I would like to pose a few questions to Mr. Savage and other broadcasters about the FD and how it may relate to HD radio. First of all, I would like to preface this by stating that I am a supporter for FM HD but believe that the AM system is unworkable, and am also an avid listener of conservative talk radio. I dread this upcoming election because of the prospect of silencing talk radio. If a station like WYSL that has a conservative lineup, and also has a FM sister station with an HD-2, can the HD-2 be used to provide equal time? Would the FD effect pay radio such as XM or HD that must be subscribed to? Thanks.
-
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
HD Radio and the Fairness Doctrine
- Thread starter Len14043
- Start date
I'm not a broadcaster but doubt very much the fairness doctrine will ever come back no matter who's in the Whitehouse. I'm also fairly liberal for what that's worth, but think regulation should be used very judiciously, although it wouldn't break my heart to see HD legislated off our dials. I don't even think that's needed either though as the people have and continue to speak and their silence speaks volumes.
The Fairness Doctrine, as it existed before the FCC dumped it, had nothing to do with "equal time." If I had a nickel for everytime someone tried to conflate the two, I'd be rich.
Bottom line is: FORGET about any reinstatement of the FD. Both presidential candidates are on record against bringing it back.
Bottom line is: FORGET about any reinstatement of the FD. Both presidential candidates are on record against bringing it back.
Some Democrats - apparently excluding Obama - THINK they want to kill conservative talk radio. If you subscribe to the prevalent theory about how they're engineering a permanent lurch to the left in the USA complete with national single-payer health care, massive benefits including voting rights for illegal aliens, permanent bans on anti-abortion laws, gigantic increases in public education spending, limits on parental rights and liberalization of criminal laws, two things are apparent.
Thing One: silencing conservative talk radio via a revived FD is pretty far down the list of legislative priorities even if they get their Congressional veto-proof supermajority. Thing Two: if the endgame is establishing a virtually unshakable liberal governmental majority, killing the conservative political safety valve of talk radio would be highly counterproductive. I can't think of a single notion which could halt the pendulum's swing to the left faster than quasi-fascist quashing of political dissent. The eyes of the citizenry remain glassy from staring at American Idol and the latest Brangelina tattoo-and-adoptee news despite outrageous voter registration fraud, external terror threats, governmental outrage upon governmental outrage. But want those pupils to snap into enraged, vindictive focus? Take away Rush Limbaugh. They'll storm the White House with Frankenstein-peasant torch riots.
What impact would a new FD have on the utility of HD Radio, Len? It's anybody's guess. I'd opine that HD would remain as irrelevant to the availability of diverse political comment as it is to music programming. Most people are unaware of HD Radio (notwithstanding insistent iBiquity claims to the contrary) and those who are aware of it are generally rejecting it. So once again, as a FD political playing-field leveler, I'd predict HD will fail.
Did I say "fail?" I'm sorry. I meant "fail miserably."
Thing One: silencing conservative talk radio via a revived FD is pretty far down the list of legislative priorities even if they get their Congressional veto-proof supermajority. Thing Two: if the endgame is establishing a virtually unshakable liberal governmental majority, killing the conservative political safety valve of talk radio would be highly counterproductive. I can't think of a single notion which could halt the pendulum's swing to the left faster than quasi-fascist quashing of political dissent. The eyes of the citizenry remain glassy from staring at American Idol and the latest Brangelina tattoo-and-adoptee news despite outrageous voter registration fraud, external terror threats, governmental outrage upon governmental outrage. But want those pupils to snap into enraged, vindictive focus? Take away Rush Limbaugh. They'll storm the White House with Frankenstein-peasant torch riots.
What impact would a new FD have on the utility of HD Radio, Len? It's anybody's guess. I'd opine that HD would remain as irrelevant to the availability of diverse political comment as it is to music programming. Most people are unaware of HD Radio (notwithstanding insistent iBiquity claims to the contrary) and those who are aware of it are generally rejecting it. So once again, as a FD political playing-field leveler, I'd predict HD will fail.
Did I say "fail?" I'm sorry. I meant "fail miserably."
Bob, FWIW, I value talk radio much more than HD radio. In fact, if the FD was re-enacted, I would buy a sat radio in a Avon NY minute. I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that subscription radio would not fall under the FD. Of course, if the democrats wanted to silence the opposition, conservative talk could be considered hate speech in their convoluted minds and would be subjected to censorship on any medium.
Savage said:
A few years back, I had thought that one of the unintended consequences of IBOC radio would be a reduction in (mostly conservative) talk-format programming, though this is looking increasingly unlikely.
The empirical evidence is that broadcasters put talk-format programming mostly on AM, rather than FM stations. I don't imagine that the public much cares whether or not the talkers are in "FM quality stereo," and certainly the audience call-ins would still not be. So, I interpret the push for AM IBOC as driven by a goal of making those properties suitable for music formats again.
- Jonathan
Also - to focus a little more on Len's initial question - my understanding of the practical application of any revived FD would be, that the channel or medium which initially aired the "controversy" would be the vehicle which would theoretically have to provide the access to the opposing viewpoint. In other words: if your AM offends the libs, you couldn't shift the responsibility for response airtime to another AM or FM, one would suppose, an HD subchannel.
Of course the administrative burden of keeping track of "controversial programming" and your station's efforts to balance it with opposing viewpoints is a textbook example of "onerous." Not to say vastly impractical and difficult to enforce (which is one reason why FD's proponents want it, since many operators will simply say "screw it" to political talk and program oldies or something. To further muddy the waters with a proposal to allow licensees to balance programming for the FD on other co-owned facilities it's easy to see how enforcement of FD compliance might become actually impossible.
FD: another dumb, outdated-when-first-adopted and probably unconstitutional idea. HD: just dumb.
Of course the administrative burden of keeping track of "controversial programming" and your station's efforts to balance it with opposing viewpoints is a textbook example of "onerous." Not to say vastly impractical and difficult to enforce (which is one reason why FD's proponents want it, since many operators will simply say "screw it" to political talk and program oldies or something. To further muddy the waters with a proposal to allow licensees to balance programming for the FD on other co-owned facilities it's easy to see how enforcement of FD compliance might become actually impossible.
FD: another dumb, outdated-when-first-adopted and probably unconstitutional idea. HD: just dumb.
jhardis said:
The Commission gave up the FD in 1989 because there were plenty of voices in the marketplace, and therefore it was unconstitutional.
That was before satellite radio, and before internet radio. I think it would be pretty hard to justify it now-a-days, especially considering the make up of SCOTUS.
That was before satellite radio, and before internet radio. I think it would be pretty hard to justify it now-a-days, especially considering the make up of SCOTUS.
True, assuming: (a) The Commission isn't repopulated with left-leaning Dems under a President Obama; (b) which kowtow to a filibuster-proof Congress with a monolithic Democrat majority by reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine; which (c) when challenged by broadcasters in Federal Court is upheld as a proscription against the latest lefty bete-noir "hate speech," and which then (d) is upheld by a reconstituted liberal SCOTUS.
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong." It's important for every radio person to not underestimate the desire of the radical left to ham-handedly control public opinion and quash dissent. Some of the rhetoric I'm hearing about political talk radio, and other forms of public expression I'm hearing is nothing short of Marxist.
Think about it. Ten years ago Venezuela was a bastion of stable, prosperous democracy. Today its a tin-whistle banana (and oil) dictatorship. All because none of the population bothered to pay attention until it was too late and Chavez had clamped a death-grip on power - and please note, he imposed his own version of the Fairness Doctrine as one of his first official acts.
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong." It's important for every radio person to not underestimate the desire of the radical left to ham-handedly control public opinion and quash dissent. Some of the rhetoric I'm hearing about political talk radio, and other forms of public expression I'm hearing is nothing short of Marxist.
Think about it. Ten years ago Venezuela was a bastion of stable, prosperous democracy. Today its a tin-whistle banana (and oil) dictatorship. All because none of the population bothered to pay attention until it was too late and Chavez had clamped a death-grip on power - and please note, he imposed his own version of the Fairness Doctrine as one of his first official acts.
Savage said:
I wish in my heart I could call you a paranoid crazy. Unfortunatly, I thought of this idea and have concluded that we are both paranoid crazies....
OR........
We could both be right and the country could be completely screwed.....
I could be right and the election is 6 days away and we could be cmpletely screwed....
I swear I've felt this way before...
Clouseau
I wish I could say we were both "paranoid crazies" too, Inspector. I fall back on the old "things are never as good as you think they are, and they're never as bad as you think they are."
Unforunately....three years ago I told myself, naaaaah! There's no way the FCC is gonna let a monstrous interference-generating IBOC system on AM at night! That would be CRAZY and broadcasters won't participate in anything so self-destructive!
Unforunately....three years ago I told myself, naaaaah! There's no way the FCC is gonna let a monstrous interference-generating IBOC system on AM at night! That would be CRAZY and broadcasters won't participate in anything so self-destructive!
It seems logical to assume the FCC wouldn't have the manpower to enforce a renewed FD, but then they manage to fine all the radio and TV stations that cross "decency" lines. The reason? People write in to complain. And they'll do the exact same thing to anyone whose radio program they disagree with.
My understanding of the FD of yore was that the complaints were handled by the broadcaster and not the FCC, unless the broadcaster refused some type of equal time.
Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure if Pacifica v FCC were to make it to SCOTUS again, it'd get struck down, along with the FCC's authority to regulate content (obscenity/indecency). This is just not a favorable climate for the FD. If it were, I am confident that putting opposing viewpoints on an HD-2 would not satisfy any diversity requirements.
My understanding of the FD of yore was that the complaints were handled by the broadcaster and not the FCC, unless the broadcaster refused some type of equal time.
Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure if Pacifica v FCC were to make it to SCOTUS again, it'd get struck down, along with the FCC's authority to regulate content (obscenity/indecency). This is just not a favorable climate for the FD. If it were, I am confident that putting opposing viewpoints on an HD-2 would not satisfy any diversity requirements.
- Status