If Conservatives Can Ban Indecency, Libs Can Have a Fairness Doctrine

[smedge2006]

It amuses me to see bloggers on conservative websites decrying any sort of return to the Fairness Doctrine as "chilling free speech."

Many of the folks on that side of the aisle were big supporters of the congressional crackdown on indecency that drove up fines, bowdlerized the airwaves and intimidated programmers, and chased folks like Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge off to satellite, causing millions of dollars in ad revenues to evaporate and loosening radio's already-tenuous grip on the under-35's.

I argue that if Congress had the right to restrict free speech and do that sort of economic damage to broadcasters (and I think it did), then it certainly has the right to restrict free speech and (maybe, although I think not) do some economic damage and intimidate programmers by encouraging more progressive talk radio stations by a Fairness Doctrine or some other means. The precedent has been set. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But these anti-FD raves are as self-serving and hypocritical as anything Mel Karmazin is likely to say to a Congressional committee about the XM-Sirius merger.

 

[evnlee]

It amuses me to see bloggers on conservative websites decrying any sort of return to the Fairness Doctrine as "chilling free speech."

Many of the folks on that side of the aisle were big supporters of the congressional crackdown on indecency that drove up fines, bowdlerized the airwaves and intimidated programmers, and chased folks like Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge off to satellite, causing millions of dollars in ad revenues to evaporate and loosening radio's already-tenuous grip on the under-35's.

I argue that if Congress had the right to restrict free speech and do that sort of economic damage to broadcasters (and I think it did), then it certainly has the right to restrict free speech and (maybe, although I think not) do some economic damage and intimidate programmers by encouraging more progressive talk radio stations by a Fairness Doctrine or some other means. The precedent has been set. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. But these anti-FD raves are as self-serving and hypocritical as anything Mel Karmazin is likely to say to a Congressional committee about the XM-Sirius merger.

what I find equally amusing are those that were so convinced of Air America's upcoming success, that they didn't worry about what effects a 'Fairness Doctrine' would have on ANY N/T.

Here's one thing you can bet on: a new FD would damage AAR as much ( if not more ) then already existing 'conservative talk'.

Also, guys like Boortz have stated this years ago: if Air America fails, then expect to see a cry for the 'return of the FD'. Smedge, you are right on cue. How does it feel to be a pawn of the VRWC?

 

[Radio_Realist]

Many of the folks on that side of the aisle were big supporters of the congressional crackdown on indecency that drove up fines, bowdlerized the airwaves and intimidated programmers, and chased folks like Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge off to satellite, causing millions of dollars in ad revenues to evaporate and loosening radio's already-tenuous grip on the under-35's.

If you can't tell the difference between discussions of issues of national policy and discussions of lesbian's breast implants, your opinion on this topic must be suspect. And, if you think the only things that under-35's care about are lesbians and their breast implants, then either you are wrong about under-35's and owe that generation an apology, or you are correct, in which case this republic has far more important things to worry about than what amusements are broadcast on the radio.

 

[kaufcom]

guys like Boortz have stated this years ago: if Air America fails, then expect to see a cry for the 'return of the FD'. Smedge, you are right on cue. How does it feel to be a pawn of the VRWC?

Conservatives keep harping on the problems at AAR, as a sign that lib talk is dead or dying. Fact is 40% of lib talkers are not affiliated with AAR. The programming makeover, that KTLK (Clear Channel) in L.A. announced a few days ago clearly represents a move away from AAR brand. Despite what Boortz and the freepers keep ranting about, lib talk will survive even if AAR doesn't.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Fact is 40% of lib talkers are not affiliated with AAR.

Fact is, 60% of lib talkers are affiliated with AAR.

Fact is, AAR is the most recognized, identifiable brand name of liberal talk radio. AAR is to liberal talk what "Kleenex" is to facial tissue, "Band-Aid" is to self-adhesive bandages, and NPR is to public radio.

What's more, AAR was the major flagship of liberal talk. With 60% of the talk hosts (which, BTW, is your number which I got from your post, so don't try to claim it's not accurate) and an even higher percentage of mind share, AAR's failures are natural indicator for the overall health of all liberal talk radio. When the biggest player in any industry segment goes belly-up, that seldom bodes well for the rest of the industry segment.

 

[smedge2006]

But that ignores another rule of business: pioneers often get arrows in their backs. Often the second one in learns from the first.

In the early days of conservative talk radio, stations failed and flipped formats all the time. One station I know of was nicknamed "WGOP" (this was back in the FD days by the way) by the listeners and was in bankruptcy court for three years. YEARS!

As for networks, the first all-sports radio network (Enterprise Radio) went belly up 25 years ago. That hardly stopped the growth of sports radio as a format. The beaches are littered with the bones of failed talk and sports talk networks -- Sun, IBN, Gulf Breeze, SportsFan to name a few.

 

[Radio_Realist]

But that ignores another rule of business: pioneers often get arrows in their backs. Often the second one in learns from the first.

"Often" doesn't mean the same as "always". You've listed a few successful enterprises in which the first player failed. What about all the businesses in which the first player failed, and no one ever followed in his footsteps?

The thing is, your comparisons don't hold water. You list one station that failed, but it could have failed due to poor execution of a good idea. AAR's failure was much deeper, because AAR failed on so many different levels.

And your example of sports radio is totally irrelevant. Sports as content on radio dates back to the first play-by-play accounts of baseball games in the 1920's. Sports programming has been a staple on radio from back in the days before the medium was ruined by people who insisted that radio couldn't have programs any more, it had to have programming, and that programming had to fit into tight little brand name boxes.

Those sports networks you mention only proved that at the time those networks tried to make it, sports talk done locally with local hosts talking about the local home teams was too strong of a format to be beaten by national or regional networks that carried talk about away teams that the local listeners didn't want to hear about anyway.

 

[evnlee]

But that ignores another rule of business: pioneers often get arrows in their backs. Often the second one in learns from the first.

In the early days of conservative talk radio, stations failed and flipped formats all the time. One station I know of was nicknamed "WGOP" (this was back in the FD days by the way) by the listeners and was in bankruptcy court for three years. YEARS!

As for networks, the first all-sports radio network (Enterprise Radio) went belly up 25 years ago. That hardly stopped the growth of sports radio as a format. The beaches are littered with the bones of failed talk and sports talk networks -- Sun, IBN, Gulf Breeze, SportsFan to name a few.

Smedge~ the first pioneer in the format with national syndication was Limbaugh. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine—which had required that stations provide free air time for responses to any controversial opinions that were broadcast—by the FCC in 1987 meant stations could broadcast editorial commentary without having to present opposing views. Daniel Henninger wrote, in a Wall Street Journal editorial, "Ronald Reagan tore down this wall (the Fairness Doctrine) in 1987...and Rush Limbaugh was the first man to proclaim himself liberated from the East Germany of liberal media domination."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh

Yet this pioneer survived the arrows.

You are correct that many LOCAL conservative hosts failed, but there is no denying 2 simple points:

Rush was the first, and remains successful.

In the open marketplace of opinion, Air America has failed.

The Fairness Doctrine would essentially destroy both formats. It is 'mutually assured destruction'.

Yet, you fans of libtalk would rather drop that bomb, and lose both formats on terrestrial radio, then abide Limbaugh's domination.

It is very telling that these hosts said years ago ' if they try to compete with us, and lose, then they will scream for a return of the 'Fairness Doctrine'.

And whaddya know?

 

[smedge2006]

Not screaming here. merely pointing out that turnabout is fair play.

Those who use government to restrict the airwaves (admittedly for noble purposes, such as protecting children from bawdy speech) can't consistently argue against those who also seek to restrict the airwaves
for noble purposes, such as ensuring fairness and evenhandedness in debate. Boortz would probably argue against both, which at least makes him consistent. I would argue that there is a case to be made for both, which makes me consistent.

I can count at least two (or maybe 1 1/2) conservative hosts who were nationally syndicated before Limbaugh:

Ray Briem, 1982-1989 (ABC Talkradio)
Chuck Harder (populist on many issues but carried well into the 90s on conservative stations) 1987-present

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has an incentive to distort history and create a false cause-effect between Limbaugh and the repeal of FD. Fact is, Limbaugh came along just as the full-service giants, the last AM music stations, were ready to throw in the towel and go all talk. Ed McLaughlin had relationships with many of these stations from his many years handling Paul Harvey and ABC News. Thus when the last big AMs were ready to talk, he was ready with talk. Had the fairness doctrine been repealed and had Limbaugh gone into syndication, both in the year 1976, he would have flopped because the technology wasn't there and because PDs were not ready to abandon music on AM. Limbaugh was not the first conservative host on radio, nor was he the first syndicated conservative host. He had backers with enough cash and came along at the right time. He also came up in an era in which talk stations generally (there were exceptions) weren't defined by ideology, which made the path much easier for him than it would be for liberal hosts or Air America half a generation later.

What about all the businesses in which the first player failed, and no one ever followed in his footsteps?

Generally it takes more than one failure to scare people away from even a bad idea. Name me an idea which was pursued by only one company, then totally abandoned.

 

[evnlee]

Not screaming here. merely pointing out that turnabout is fair play.

Those who use government to restrict the airwaves (admittedly for noble purposes, such as protecting children from bawdy speech) can't consistently argue against those who also seek to restrict the airwaves
for noble purposes, such as ensuring fairness and evenhandedness in debate. Boortz would probably argue against both, which at least makes him consistent. I would argue that there is a case to be made for both, which makes me consistent.

I can count at least two (or maybe 1 1/2) conservative hosts who were nationally syndicated before Limbaugh:

Ray Briem, 1982-1989 (ABC Talkradio)
Chuck Harder (populist on many issues but carried well into the 90s on conservative stations) 1987-present

The Wall Street Journal editorial page ....blah blah blah, obvious bias, blah blah blah.



Generally it takes more than one failure to scare people away from even a bad idea. Name me an idea which was pursued by only one company, then totally abandoned.

Sorry, Smedge. The first nationally syndicated LIVE host was Limbaugh. Not Briem or Harder, Rush was the first. You are going to have to deal with that sooner or later.

And, banning 'offensive speech' is not tantamount to 'banning all opinion', which is what your wonderful new FD would do. As I've stated before, it would hurt AAR as well, possibly more. That's why 'very few' progressive hosts are on board. Sure, maybe Robert Kennedy ( weekend warrior, still trying to get that wascawy wabbit ) might spout off on it, but your not going to hear Miller or Schultz promoting it. They know they want to keep thier affiliates, and this would hurt them.

As far as banning 'offensive speech' or 'indecency', well, we all know you liberals can take a joke, right? Just ask the guy from Grey's Anatomy.

 

[smedge2006]

The first nationally syndicated LIVE host was Limbaugh. Not Briem or Harder, Rush was the first.

Simply wrong. Briem's show aired live coast to coast. Harder was live on many if not most of his affiliates. Remember, this was back in the day when to delay a show you needed two board operators (one to record it, another to play it back). Harder re-fed his show, Briem did not. Virtually every station that took Briem took him live.

 

[evnlee]

The first nationally syndicated LIVE host was Limbaugh. Not Briem or Harder, Rush was the first.

Simply wrong. Briem's show aired live coast to coast. Harder was live on many if not most of his affiliates. Remember, this was back in the day when to delay a show you needed two board operators (one to record it, another to play it back). Harder re-fed his show, Briem did not. Virtually every station that took Briem took him live.

?

Briem's show did not air live coast to coast! He was on KABC but did not air live in NYC.

You might be better using Pyne as an example, but not Briem. Briem did bring the 'caller' aspect into the mix, but not on any 'national' level.

And all of them ( Harder,Pyne,Briem and Limabagh) would scoff at any new 'fairness doctrine'

 

[smedge2006]

Curious that this New York Times article about WABC's format change in 1982 did not say Briem would not air in New York:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06EEDC1F39F931A35756C0A964948260

Of course, he did air in New York. As did his successor, Freddie Mertz. As did all ABC Talkradio weekday programming except Dr. Irene Kassorla.

Curious as well is this tendency to think that talk radio was born with Limbaugh's show. This belief requires one to airbrush not only all the liberals who did talk prior to 1988 and prior to the purges of the 1990's, but to airbrush or minimize all of the pre-1988 conservatives as well.

 

[evnlee]

Curious that this New York Times article about WABC's format change in 1982 did not say Briem would not air in New York:

Curious that they also mention he was..........

on overnights.

Who was the first liberal syndicated host to air nationally during a daypart?

 

[Ultimajock]

Who was the first liberal syndicated host to air nationally during a daypart?

...Michael Jackson, also a part of ABC Talkradio. He did middays. Having said that, it's also misleading to discuss the King, Briem and Jackson programs in the same context as Limbaugh's, as the primary focus of the programs weren't the politics of the hosts (like Limbaugh) but the guests that appeared and the topics discussed. To my knowledge, the first syndicated open-topic program to be hosted by a liberal was Jack Ellery's, on the old Sun and People's Radio Networks when Chuck Harder owned them. Tom Leykis was marketed by Westwood One as a liberal upon his national debut in 1994, but during the program he always specified that he was in fact a moderate and only seemed liberal in comparison to the rest of the syndicated field at the time (Limbaugh, Liddy, Pat Buchanan, Ken Hamblin, Barry Farber)...

 

[evnlee]

Who was the first liberal syndicated host to air nationally during a daypart?

...Michael Jackson, also a part of ABC Talkradio. He did middays. Having said that, it's also misleading to discuss the King, Briem and Jackson programs in the same context as Limbaugh's, as the primary focus of the programs weren't the politics of the hosts (like Limbaugh) but the guests that appeared and the topics discussed. To my knowledge, the first syndicated open-topic program to be hosted by a liberal was Jack Ellery's, on the old Sun and People's Radio Networks when Chuck Harder owned them. Tom Leykis was marketed by Westwood One as a liberal upon his national debut in 1994, but during the program he always specified that he was in fact a moderate and only seemed liberal in comparison to the rest of the syndicated field at the time (Limbaugh, Liddy, Pat Buchanan, Ken Hamblin, Barry Farber)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson_(radio)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show

Interesting. The wiki links show that Rush began national syndication in 1984, and that Jackson began his talk career on ....wait for it...overnights.

The Jackson bio states that he began national daypart syndication about the same time, and goes on to state " In the 1960's he started one of the first radio talk shows in the country on KEWB during the overnight hours, in the middle of spinning records. He received national acclaim in Time Magazine for saving the life of a suicidal person by keeping him talking on the phone until the police came.

After that, he moved to Los Angeles, where he began hosting talk radio on KNX-AM in 1964 before beginning a 30 year tenure on heritage talk station KABC, occupying the 9 am to noon spot. The mid-day talk show drew guests from around the world but began regularly losing to The Rush Limbaugh Show on crosstown KFI. The show was deemed too liberal and serious for the new generation of talk listeners. His show moved to weekends. moved to KRLA (1110) and KLAC until those stations ended their talk radio format."

But you guys are missing the point: any re-introduction of a 'Fairness Doctrine' would essentially scare off station owners from the format, and force it to satellite. It would be the death knell of ALL talk opinion shows. The only ones whining about a 'new FD' are the ones that would be happy seing both Limbaugh and Miller or Scultz off the air. I may be wrong about Rush being the 'first' or a 'pioneer' ( although wiki doesn't clarify, so I'm willing to learn otherwise) but he is the 'best' ( in terms of $$$ and listenership ).

 

[zaxxons1]

As fate would have it, I was "listening" to Chuck Harder on Talk Star's streaming audio yesterday afternoon.
I put "listening" in quotes because Chuck Harder wasn't making much sense, his program sounding like a rambling monologue from Ross Perot's crazy aunt in the basement.
When a radio talk show host repeatedly forgets simple words; when he goes off on weird tangents that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic du jour; when he stutters and stammers; when he loses his train of thought - the question is, how long can he stay on the air?
Yes, I know: Harder's been in terrible health for what seems like a hundred years, and he keeps on keeping on. It's been a very long time since he had any kind of influence, though; he hasn't taken callers in two years and quit doing PSA's and spots long before that.
He's even dropped his daily appeal for bucks from listeners, as well as his "Double Chuck's Audience" marketing pitch.
Perhaps most chilling, he has said at least three times since the first of the year, "Rumors of my death are greatly over-exaggerated."
Yesterday, Harder started the second half-hour guest segment talking about ... butterflies. Then he lurched into his main topic, "The Great Worldwide Conspiracy," or something like that.
Strangely enough, I do give kudos to Talk Star for keeping Harder on the air, as a form of charity for a bloke who's seem much more than his share of misery, pain, failed dreams, and missed opportunities (truthfully, haven't we all?). With that appreciation, though, comes a bit of envy; I wish someone had done the same for me when I was "down and out."
Guess it does pay to have friends in the right places.

 

[zaxxons1]

Sorry to stray from the topic of this thread ... so, I'll make up for it by citing two comments from Chuck Harder:
In 1997, on his radio program, he called President Clinton the "antichrist."
Ten years later, he accuses President Bush of being a "Fabian socialist."
If there ever were a case for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine ("statutory right of reply"), this is it.
Does anyone out there really believe that if they used such admittedly inflammatory language against a sitting U.S. President, there would not be some sort of reaction amongst supporters of said President?
Does anyone truly think that such language is the hallmark of a sound mind?
I certainly hope the answer to both questions is "no."
That's what the Fairness Doctrine, in my opinion, was all about. It wasn't designed to suppress legitimate free speech ("fair commentary"); it was meant to counter over-the-top, dangerously reactionary or inciteful rhetoric ("yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater"). In other words, if someone (a radio talk show host, for instance) said something patently stupid, inaccurate, silly or incendiary, there was a mechanism for pointing that out and publicly admonishing the originator of said statement.
In other words, the Fairness Doctrine was a method of self-discipline or self-control.
I hope that somehow, somewhere, we can come up with a new, updated, 21st-century version of the Fairness Doctrine that keeps the Chuck Harders of the radio world in line while at the same time not chilling legitimate free speech.

 

[sdkalb]

To: Zaxxons1

Fr: sdkalb

re: your last message


"Amen."

 

[gr8oldies]

In America you're allowed to call the President a fascist or the antichrist. You can't threaten to assassinate him or the FBI will be beaing down your door. But there's no FD that's needed to stop someone from calling the President names.