Interesting talk radio lawsuit

[argentarius]

This is a story I got from RadioandRecords.com. I got me thinking what could be the implications for a local station like KDKA or even 104.7 if someone wanted to try something like this here. What are the merits of a case like this? Does it have legs, or is it just throwing away money? Any legal minds out there?




Salem L.A. Being Sued
By Mike Stern

www.radioandrecords.com

Los Angeles resident David Birke has filed a lawsuit against Salem talk KRLA/Los Angeles claiming the station and parent company misrepresented their federal license agreement by serving the interest of the Republican Party, not the public.[EDIT]

[EDIT-post truncated because originating material is copyrighted. Unauthorized use of copyrighted content is in violation of Radio-Info's
TOS.]

 

[Parttimer]

The Fairness Doctrine is not currently in force, although that's a distinct possibility in a new Democratic administration.

Aside from that, you think this guy is just Joe Citizen? Less than 60 days to the election, there are ulterior motives everywhere....

 

[Snafu]

Won't get anywhere with this present commission, but I suspect that in an Obama administration there is a better than even chance that radio as we know it right now is not going to be tolerated. I don't expect a return of the Fairness Doctrine, but I do expect something along the lines of different criteria concerning news and public affairs programming and wouldn't be at all surprised by mandatory local generation rules that might curtail the number of syndicated shows that can be run.

 

[Parttimer]

I think some conservative talk operators actually expect a full-blown return to the Fariness Doctrine, which would make it so difficult to run a political talk format that most stations would abandon it, and conservative talk as we know it would pretty much vanish, maybe move to satellite.

 

[Biz Listener]

Won't get anywhere with this present commission, but I suspect that in an Obama administration there is a better than even chance that radio as we know it right now is not going to be tolerated. I don't expect a return of the Fairness Doctrine, but I do expect something along the lines of different criteria concerning news and public affairs programming and wouldn't be at all surprised by mandatory local generation rules that might curtail the number of syndicated shows that can be run.

Don't be surprised to see a rules or law change that makes show-by-show syndication more difficult, but that makes old-fashioned network programming more attractive. I realize that everyone who wants to have a job in radio keeps wishing for rules or laws to create more local broadcasting jobs, meaning less syndication. But be careful what you wish for. The big campaign contributors to both parties include the companies that would benefit most from a return to three or four full-service networks carrying identical, simultaneous content on all of their affiliates across the country.

This is a prediction, not insider information. Don't be surprised if this doesn't happen. I'd lay the odds of what I described at 3 to 1 in favor. It's not a sure thing, but I think it's a fairly good bet.

 

[fryman]

It's about time for this. AM talk radio has become a rats nest of the GOP. It is nothing more than "Fox News" anymore.

 

[Biz Listener]

It's about time for this. AM talk radio has become a rats nest of the GOP. It is nothing more than "Fox News" anymore.

You need to vary your listening diet. In Pittsburgh (and this is the Pittsburgh board), people like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Quinn are on FM. The AM dial is mostly home to snake oil salesmen, oldies, and brokered time "broadcasting".

 

[Zipperhead]

If what fryman says is true then there must be a huge hole on the market for an all liberal talk show station in the burgh, wouldn't it make sense for someone to step in and fill that hole. I know that there are tens of thousands of liberals in the area, all my friends all liberal, they must be starving for a radio station that broadcasts their views. Anyone agree?

 

[Biz Listener]

If what fryman says is true then there must be a huge hole on the market for an all liberal talk show station in the burgh, wouldn't it make sense for someone to step in and fill that hole. I know that there are tens of thousands of liberals in the area, all my friends all liberal, they must be starving for a radio station that broadcasts their views. Anyone agree?

Very few people agree. This was discussed in other threads. It would appear, based on the lack of success of liberal slanted news/talk programming in all but a handful of markets, that people who hold liberal political opinions prefer listening to music format radio. I can't prove it. I've seen no research on the subject. But that would explain why so many conservative news/talk shows thrive in many, many markets while liberal news/talk shows seem to fail. I think the theory that liberals prefer to listen to music at least explains the failures of liberal new/talk on all but a handful of markets.

However, there is a great deal of liberal slanted spoken word content on WDUQ. It's just not presented in the standard news/talk format.

Anyone want to guess how long it takes for someone to jump in and mention one or two of the handful of markets I described and call that "proof" that liberal news/talk will work?

 

[FreddyE1977]

I do find it a bit surprising that liberal talk radio did not find more success, since so many liberals
out there (including those on this board) seem to be so passionate about their views. But the
evidence is that they weren't listening.

As for the lawsuit, it is clearly an attempt to chill the atmosphere for conservative shows that might
wish to go after Obama between now and the election. This guy is hoping that they will have second
thoughts about playing the Wright Tapes, etc., if they face being slapped with a subpoena. I do not
think the tactic will work. The suit has no shot of coming before a judge in the next 50 days, and will
likely be dropped after the election. Just a shot across the bow....

Besides, with the rate at which the wheels appear to be coming off of the Obama campaign,
this whole Fairness Doctrine discussion may be moot anyhow.

 

[Parttimer]

on't be surprised to see a rules or law change that makes show-by-show syndication more difficult, but that makes old-fashioned network programming more attractive.

I could be wrong, but if the Fairness Doctrine as we knew it previously comes back, it doesn't matter if the content is syndicated or from a network, the station carrying it has to give equal time to opposing views. The prediction is that faced with that administrative challenge, and haviong compliance tied to license renewal, that most will make the programming go away (and that will apply equally to liberals and conservatives... all political opinion will be gone).

Then AM will have to find the next Ed and Wendy King somewhere.

 

[Pratte4Life]

We had liberal talk radio in Pittsburgh for years.

WTAE leaned left during their prime. We have theorized about what would have happened if they had picked up Rush Limbaugh and carried him daily (they were the first station to carry him, but saved him for the weekends on tape delay) on this board, but instead they wished to keep their local hosts.

WPTT then essentially picked up the old WTAE format (Cullen and Hoerth) and went with it for 10 years.

Other stations have tried this. WURP carried and promoted "The Young Turks" heavily, even taking Don Imus before his controversy off the air in favor of them. KDKA has had ultra-lefties Michelle Madoff, John McIntire, and Chris Moore.

My feelings on why liberal talk radio doesn't work are two fold. First of all, radio is a capitalist venture. It is hard to sell to business when the left wishes to attack business on so many things.

Second, it is my opinion that when an issue is talked out, rather than written about, the conservative view usually wins out.

 

[Parttimer]

And maybe that Limbaugh, Hannity and Glen Beck are more talented and entertaining? (Although that doesn't explain Michael Savage...).

BTW, was WPIT carrying Laura Ingraham?

 

[Biz Listener]

on't be surprised to see a rules or law change that makes show-by-show syndication more difficult, but that makes old-fashioned network programming more attractive.

I could be wrong, but if the Fairness Doctrine as we knew it previously comes back, it doesn't matter if the content is syndicated or from a network, the station carrying it has to give equal time to opposing views. The prediction is that faced with that administrative challenge, and haviong compliance tied to license renewal, that most will make the programming go away (and that will apply equally to liberals and conservatives... all political opinion will be gone).

Then AM will have to find the next Ed and Wendy King somewhere.

No one knows what will happen. I am confident that the Fairness Doctrine as we knew it will never, ever come back. Whatever changes are made won't be the result of the bureaucrats in the FCC writing a new regulation, which is what the Fairness Doctrine was. But depending on what party gains control of Congress, and if they have a veto proof majority in case the other party wins the White House, there could be legislation passed that might have an effect similar to the old Fairness Doctrine.

My guess (and it's purely a guess) is that any new laws about broadcast content for both radio and television will shift responsibility for network programming from the affiliates to the network. The spectre of a local broadcaster getting fined because of what ABC sent over the link will probably disappear. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see broadcast stations be given a total pass over anything that they air that they get from a formal network, placing 100% of the burden on the networks and not the local stations. However, local stations would be liable for the content of any non-network programming, including syndicated programs.

If that happens, look for the EIB to attempt to turn itself into a real network, with a full schedule of programming offered in real time, just like the television networks. And look for players like Clear Channel and Infinity to start music format networks, with one DJ in one studio broadcasting coast-to-coast. If anyone thinks voice-tracking costs jobs, wait until every Clear Channel classic rock station has a local morning show, 100% network other than PM drive time, and a PM Drive Time network show with local cut-aways for traffic reports. And they'll have another network for Oldies, and another for CHR, and another for news/talk, etc.

That's just my speculation. I'd guess that there's maybe a 50% chance of that actually happening, maybe less.

And maybe that Limbaugh, Hannity and Glen Beck are more talented and entertaining? (Although that doesn't explain Michael Savage...).

That's another factor. And it's damn near impossible to weight the influence of multiple factors. But while I could accept that Limbaugh and Beck do well because of talent, Hannity success has more to do with the fact that conservative talk show fans would rather listen to second-rate conservative talk than music. Most people with a liberal philosophy would rather listen to music than to first-rate liberal news/talk shows.

 

[Zipperhead]

It just seems to me to be more practical to rather than trying to shut the other side up with law suits and the fairness doctrine that we start our own liberal talk stations and networks. Wouldn't that be more fair than any fairness doctrine. I just never like the thought of limiting free speech, and that includes banning books or shutting up someone on the radio that I don't agree with.
Most of the conservatives are just preaching to the choir anyway.

 

[Parttimer]

My guess (and it's purely a guess) is that any new laws about broadcast content for both radio and television will shift responsibility for network programming from the affiliates to the network. The spectre of a local broadcaster getting fined because of what ABC sent over the link will probably disappear. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see broadcast stations be given a total pass over anything that they air that they get from a formal network, placing 100% of the burden on the networks and not the local stations. However, local stations would be liable for the content of any non-network programming, including syndicated programs.

I don't know... the whole Stern thing happened because local affiliate were afraid Howard was going to cost them their licenses. I'm curious what makes you think this could go in such an opposite direction?

 

[Biz Listener]

It just seems to me to be more practical to rather than trying to shut the other side up with law suits and the fairness doctrine that we start our own liberal talk stations and networks. Wouldn't that be more fair than any fairness doctrine. I just never like the thought of limiting free speech, and that includes banning books or shutting up someone on the radio that I don't agree with.
Most of the conservatives are just preaching to the choir anyway.

I got news for you. All news/talk radio hosts are preaching to the choir. Al Franken (when he was on), that Stephanie chick, Tom Hartman, and all the other liberal news/talk shows are preaching to their choir just the same as their conservative counterparts. Plenty of people with deep pockets (can you say "George Soros") tried to get liberal news/talk going. They all failed, some worse than others. But, if you have the money to throw away, more power to you.

I don't know... the whole Stern thing happened because local affiliate were afraid Howard was going to cost them their licenses. I'm curious what makes you think this could go in such an opposite direction?

I think that the corporations that own big blocks of radio stations, like Clear Channel and the rest of them, have made sufficient campaign contributions to both parties to ensure favorable legislation. Besides, Stern was syndicated, so his show wouldn't be protected by the "It's the network's fault" umbrella. I suspect that after the recent flap about the FCC fining local stations over some bare buttocks on NYPD Blue is going to prompt the local broadcast industry's mouthpieces in DC to cut deals to get the law changed to protect their own bare buttocks. And I think that most Congressmen and Senators recognize that having friends in the news departments of their TV and radio stations in their districts or states is a valuable thing. So, they'll pass a law to protect the local stations, and it'll include various amendments and riders that'll cause major changes n the broadcast industry.

Understand, I'm not attempting to discuss politics here (and consign this thread to "Take it Outside"), I'm just speculating on the impact of business moves on the business of radio. I'm not saying if something is good or bad, or asking anyone to take a political side on an issue. I'm just talking about things that'll affect radio in cities like Pittsburgh. And again, I do not own a crystal ball or a deck of tarot cards. These are just my speculations on what might happen.

 

[kenhawk1160]

My feelings on why liberal talk radio doesn't work are two fold. First of all, radio is a capitalist venture. It is hard to sell to business when the left wishes to attack business on so many things.

Second, it is my opinion that when an issue is talked out, rather than written about, the conservative view usually wins out.

I'll half-agree with that, Pratte. Liberal talk radio can work, just not on AM. Put it on a high-powered FM and you'll see results. If you're talking about liberal talk radio solely in Pittsburgh, it's not going to fly, period.