Left Beats Right In Seattle In 25-54

[smedge2006]

The one criticism I've heard of Air America that has any impact is its preference for "outside" talent over radio people, with the exception of Randi Rhodes. Perhaps a few journeymen would have helped things along???

Also, remember these chameleons are only the ones we know about, because they were liberals in another life. It's reasonable to ask whether Michael Savage, onetime denizen of Ginsburg, ever really converted to the ideology he promotes. But how many more calculating turncoats are out there?

Going from the other direction, one of Lionel's favorite phrases from his days at WFLA in Tampa was "LOCK AND LOAD!" Hardly a liberal sentiment there...

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Perhaps a few journeymen would have helped things along???"

There are hundreds of millions of people in the United States. Tens of thousands of them work in radio. The issue isn't whether a "few journeymen" would have helded AAR. The issue is which "few journeymen". Out of the hundreds of millions of people in the United States, out of the tens of thousands of journeymen who work in radio, AAR needed (or needs) to find one or two really good ones. When you start talking about one or two of anything out of a group of tens of thousands, you're talking about some very specific requirements.

It's not like AAR could call up the local AFTRA office and ask them to send over a couple of journeyman talk show hosts, the same way one would call the plumbers union to order a couple of guys to put pipes together. To be the one out of tens of thousands who is right for the job requires high levels of skill at all the aspects of the job. So, maybe one or two radio journeyman might have helped AAR, but only if it were the right one or two radio journeymen. It would take a fantastic amount of luck to find one or two radio journeymen selected at random who'd have made a positive difference.

Saying that any hack journeyman could be a top level, national star radio host capable of carrying an entire new network on his back is simply wrong. And what AAR really needs isn't just a handful of mediocre journeymen, to get off the ground and running they way they want to be running, they need star power.

They tried to get that with people who were stars from other media, with limited success. That doesn't mean that people from other media can't become radio stars. It only means that star power is such a rare thing that those responsible for finding people who have it have to have excellent powers of discernment. Mediocre managers seldom seldom recognize star quality talent, so they substitute market research and focus groups instead.

What would save their bacon would be to discover someone with the intangibles needed to be as good as a Rush or a Hannity. That's a lot like finding an NFL starting quarterback good enough to take your team to the Super Bowl. If it was easy, if there was a simple formula for it, then every team would have such a quarterback. Saying that a star level talk show host has to be an experienced radio veteran is like saying that a star quarterback has to have played for a major college team and not some little backwater school like Louisiana Tech. That's not a perfect analogy, but I think it illustrates what I'm talking about.

What counts is how well the talk show host does at hosting the talk show, not the career path he took to get there. Someone who doesn't have the raw, native talent can't do it, no matter how much experience and training he might have had. Someone with nothing but raw talent can't do it, not without sufficient training and coaching to develop his skills. But, someone with enough talent can polish his skills very quickly, but no amount of polishing will shine someone who only has mediocre talent into a star.

And for news/talk stardom, genuineness and sincere belief in what one says is one aspect that has to be there.

"But how many more calculating turncoats are out there?"

That depends on whether you're asking about the mediocre journeymen, or the small handful of news/talk stars at the top of the pyramid.

 

[kaufcom]

So how does one discuss radio News/Talk programming, which is all about politics, without any mention of politics in the course of the discussion?

Of course you can touch on political themes when you post about political talk. For example the opening post on this thread referring to the Seattle winter demos and concluding with a dig aimed at right wing posters who are obsessed with the Armagedon (I mean the demise of liberal talk radio.) What the board monitor is referring to are people like you who are following the 95-5 rule. (i.e. 95% politics, 5% talk radio.) Or who go on ad nauseum about why left wing talk radio is called "liberal talk radio" or "progressive talk radio.")

 

[fred flintstone]

Tens of thousands of them work in radio.

That's a bit high - especially since we are dealing here only with a small portion of the people who work in radio, on-air talent.

Plumbers are skilled labor. Talk show hosts are performing artists. You are trying to introduce an apples and oranges fallacy here. "Journeyman talk show host" is an oxymoron (like journeyman actor, journeyman singer, journeyman musician).

If there were some objective standard to evaluate and measure radio talent, life would be a lot simpler. It's not about a level of skill than can be quantified, observed, measured and tested. It is entirely intangible and subjective. It's different from professional athletes; the scoreboard in sports provides an objective measure of ability.

There are radio personalities who dominate their markets - often for years - and then relocate and fail. There are personalities who keep failing - sometimes in the same market - and then all of a sudden are major successes. There are personalities who were overnight successes and then bombed. In all these instances, skill is constant (maybe even increased with experience); success is not. Rush bounced around different markets, getting hired and fired up and down the dial - then caught lightning in a bottle. Airchecks from different stops he made (different formats, even different air names) are available online. It's the same Rush, doing the same shtick. And then one day it worked.

What counts is how well the talk show host does at hosting the talk show, not the career path he took to get there.

However, the career path he took to get there determines and shapes how well a host does at hosting a show.

"The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made." - George Burns

 

[kaufcom]

Re: Dream On

Radio is a business filled with people who lie for a living - make a virtue of their ability to lie effective - and take an almost infantile joy in their ability to lie.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people - H. L. Mencken

Good point. An example here in LA are Joe Crummy and Tammy Bruce. When they were on LA Radio they were positioned as left of center to moderate. Now Crummy is right wing flame thrower in Phoenix and Bruce is doing the same on her syndicated weekend show.

 

[Radio_Realist]

"Journeyman talk show host" is an oxymoron (like journeyman actor, journeyman singer, journeyman musician).

It's not really an oxymoron, just as the examples you list aren't, either. The term "journeyman" is often used to describe those who occupy the middle rungs of the entertainment pyramid. A "journeyman" talk show host would be one who manages to keep working at local shows on medium market stations, always keeping a job but never becoming a star. The people baroosk mentioned, Joe Crummy and Tammy Bruce, are examples of what I'm talking about when I refer to "journeymen".

They are to radio what the actors who work steadily on stage, screen and television, but who never get star billing are -- journeymen. They are to radio what the journeymen singers are, people who make a living doing singing commercials, studio work singing back-up on records, etc. Journeyman musicians earn a living doing session and soundtrack work, or playing in pit orchestras in New York or Las Vegas.

There's no shame in earning a decent living in any branch of showbiz while never becoming a star.

And the more examples posted of people who are not now and never will be star-level talk show hosts who still manage to stay employed while bouncing from one local station to another (and maybe getting lucky with a minor weekend syndication deal), and switching their content like it was a hair style, the more proof is presented that supports my contention that one can never, ever be a major "star" level talk show host without a combination of talent, experience, and true, genuine belief in what one talks about.

"However, the career path he took to get there determines and shapes how well a host does at hosting a show."

That statement is only partly correct. A more accurate statement would be "The career path he took to get there is one of the many factors that determines and shapes how well a host does at hosting a show. There's also his real world experiences outside of radio, his natural talents and gifts, his dedication or lack thereof, and many, many others." Trying to pin a person's success in any field to one, and only one, factor is folly.

 

[fred flintstone]

By your definition, the only syndicated hosts who are NOT "journeymen" are Rush and Hannity. None of the others, left or right, have anything approaching "star quality."

I would not confuse "journeyman" with local, however. There are some truely legendary hosts/personalities who were never in syndication (or wanted to be), and who demonstrated "star quality."

Radio - like politics - is local (and it also makes for strange bedfellows).

 

[smedge2006]

Rush was a "journeyman" who got lucky. I don't think that Rush in 1988 was better than any number of local hosts, left and right. The only unusual aspect of his schtick was an ability to talk to the baby boom generation that grew up on rock 'n' roll. The rest was the result of good connections (his syndicator was a former president of ABC Radio), and being in the right place in the right time. In 1988 many music and full-service AM stations were swimming in the water, the ship had sunk, and were just climbing on board the lifeboat of talk radio. In many smaller markets, Rush was the first talk they heard.

Rush was also technically well-situated on the ABC satellite transponder, meaning he reached more potential affiliates than other talent on networks like the Sun Radio Network, which began at about the same time.

I wonder how the content and politics of talk radio would be different today if, instead of Rush, the first nationally syndicated talk to hit heartland America in prime time had been Gene Burns, Neil Rogers, Bob Lassiter, Kevin McCarthy, etc. etc.

 

[Radio_Realist]

By your definition, the only syndicated hosts who are NOT "journeymen" are Rush and Hannity. None of the others, left or right, have anything approaching "star quality."

Franken might come close. Possibly Savage. Remember, just as many movie "stars" aren't as good at acting as the journey men who support them in movies, plays, and TV shows, talk show "stars" might not be as technically good at their craft, but they have the something extra, that "star quality" that sets them apart.

There are some truely legendary hosts/personalities who were never in syndication (or wanted to be), and who demonstrated "star quality."

Since I do not regard the descriptor "journeyman" as an epithet or a term of derision, I would say that anyone who chose to remain only on local radio and to never pursue anything beyond that level to have chosen to remain journeyman. When I said "There's no shame in earning a decent living in any branch of showbiz while never becoming a star", I was referring to both those who couldn't have become stars as well as those who made a deliberate decision not to pursue becoming "stars".

Rush was a "journeyman" who got lucky.

That's right. Luck is a major factor in success in most fields. Being in the right place at the right time is one of the most common definitions of "luck".

The only unusual aspect of his schtick was an ability to talk to the baby boom generation that grew up on rock 'n' roll.

Again, that's right. You've described the unique quality that set him on the road to stardom. The "star quality" that sets someone apart doesn't have to be something earthshaking or unusual. It just has to be something that the public wants. What is it that makes Brittany Spears a major star while hundreds of other girls who look as good or better than her, and who sing as good or better than her are nobodies? (Feel free to substitute any other name for Ms. Spears that floats your boat).

I wonder how the content and politics of talk radio would be different today if, instead of Rush, the first nationally syndicated talk to hit heartland America in prime time had been Gene Burns, Neil Rogers, Bob Lassiter, Kevin McCarthy, etc. etc.

It's really hard to say. It could be argued and argued whether it was Rush's delivery or his politics that made him a success. I don't know the answer to that one. What I do claim to know is that regardless of which one it was, it was his genuineness and sincerity that enabled him to stay at the top for well over a decade.

 

[fred flintstone]

All Radio IS Local

I would say that anyone who chose to remain only on local radio and to never pursue anything beyond that level to have chosen to remain journeyman.

Setting aside my distaste for the word "journeyman" applied to a performing artist (even given your modified definition of the word away from its skilled trades origins), I have to take exception to your pro syndication bias.

I submit the following "master practitioners" of local radio for your consideration. These people chose to be whales in one pond, rather than little fish in 100 ponds. Some even turned down syndication.
Jack Bogut
Bob Braun
Jack Carney
Howie Carr
Brad Crandall
Steve Dahl
John DePetro
Wally George
Bill Handel
Roger Hedgecock
Fred Honsberger
Klavan and Finch
J.P. McCarthy
Bob Menefee
Spike O'Dell
Ronn Owens
Wally Phillips
Neil Rogers
Don Sherwood
Bob Steele
Thom Whalen
Dick Whittinghill

A big part of the problem for AAR, Salem and the other turn-key networks is no local presence, no local shows and no local hosts. The dominant talk stations - and the most consistently top performing - are strongly local (some ALL local - WGN, KGO, WLW...). Stations without local hosts get fractional or 1+ shares. Some of the people on my (very incomplete) list have gotten over 20 shares and almost all of them dominated their time slots in respective markets for over 20 years.

Some people on this board keep saying things like so-and-so is a great local host; he should be syndicated. NO! Radio needs more good local hosts, not fewer. Stations pick up syndicated shows because they are cheap and safe (a predictable product). People like Rush and Hannity can make strong performers stronger (and none of the other syndicated hosts is much of a draw). Rush and Hannity get good numbers on strong stations but they don't make stations strong performers. Stations live or die by morning drive (local on any top performing station). A station either shows a profit for the day before 10 am or it stays in the red.

The people who fund AAR think as you do. They have dismissed the importance of local programming - even on the one station they have operated for the past two and a half years. They apparently took public radio ("NPR") as their model, ignoring the fact that public radio stations using the news and information format have consistently been developing and building local news and local programming. Some say it's ideology that holds AAR back. No. It's several things and prominent among them is the lack of a local presence in most markets. The markets where progressive talk station do well - surprise, surprise - are those where stations have at least one solid local show.

Local personalities, local news, local involvement and local presence are terrestrial radio's unique selling point. If broadcast radio is still around in 20 years, it will be because of local programming. Satellite repeaters won't save radio.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I submit the following "master practitioners" of local radio for your consideration.

I'm not very familiar with most of those names, as I don't listen to radio stations I cannot pick up on my radio. But if all of them have "star quality" but decided to remain local journeymen instead of going for syndication, that's fine. Frankly, I can't imagine Jack Bogut appealing to a national audience, but that's beside the point, as is the fact that he is not a news/talk host.

A big part of the problem for AAR, Salem and the other turn-key networks is no local presence, no local shows and no local hosts.

When did I ever say that syndicated programming was superior to local programming? Don't change this discussion into a totally different discussion by putting words into my keyboard -- words I never typed and don't believe it.

Of course local hosts are critical to the success of a local station. But AAR and other syndication services can't do anything about local stations. Syndication networks provide syndicated programs. Syndication networks don't provide non-syndicated local hosts.

Local personalities, local news, local involvement and local presence are terrestrial radio's unique selling point. If broadcast radio is still around in 20 years, it will be because of local programming. Satellite repeaters won't save radio.

You'll get no dispute from me on that point. But that is totally beside the point when discussing the success or failure of a venture that syndicates national programming. It's not AAR's place to get local hosts up and running on local stations. It's AAR's place to do what they do, which is to provide liberal talk show programming to local stations that the local stations can use to fill the programming blocks where they have no local programs.

There are no conservative talk radio syndication networks that tell their local affiliates to use local hosts during certain day-parts. Fred Honsberger (who, BTW, is way past his sell-by date) isn't on KDKA because some national syndicator told the management of KDKA to run a local host in PM drive. The management of KDKA decided to keep Honsberger instead of putting Sean Hannity on after Rush back when KDKA had the rights to Rush's show and could have had Hannity's show if they wanted it. Now, KDKA has lost Rush to Clear Channel's FM talker on 104.7, and Honsberger is struggling against Hannity.

But what KDKA did is an example of local station management making local station management decisions. It's not an example of what a company in the business of promoting nationally syndicated programming does.

 

[evnlee]

Rush was a "journeyman" who got lucky. I don't think that Rush in 1988 was better than any number of local hosts, left and right. The only unusual aspect of his schtick was an ability to talk to the baby boom generation that grew up on rock 'n' roll. The rest was the result of good connections (his syndicator was a former president of ABC Radio), and being in the right place in the right time. In 1988 many music and full-service AM stations were swimming in the water, the ship had sunk, and were just climbing on board the lifeboat of talk radio. In many smaller markets, Rush was the first talk they heard.

Rush was also technically well-situated on the ABC satellite transponder, meaning he reached more potential affiliates than other talent on networks like the Sun Radio Network, which began at about the same time.

I wonder how the content and politics of talk radio would be different today if, instead of Rush, the first nationally syndicated talk to hit heartland America in prime time had been Gene Burns, Neil Rogers, Bob Lassiter, Kevin McCarthy, etc. etc.

You have to chuckle when progressive types label a successful person 'lucky'. While I personally don't agree with Limbaugh's politics, I have to begrudgingly admit that luck had very little to do with his success.

If he got 'lucky', the only place I could see it was the repeal of the horrible 'fairness doctrine'. This allowed smaller market AM's the ability to offer Rush' special brand of commentary, without penalty.

Also, technology developed that helped his syndicators, but that would have happened regardless, so I don't consider that 'lucky'.

If he had good connections, he obviously kissed enough rump to get them to help him out. That hardly seems 'lucky'.

Music formatting on AM radio died a decade or more before Limbaugh hit the national airwaves( due to stereo FM ), so many smaller markets had 'talk radio' waaaaay before Rush.

In Atlanta, we had WRNG, 'Ring Radio' that cultivated talent like Boortz 30 years ago. In teeny markets like Cumming or Winder Georgia, Talk radio was alive, but not well. You could regularly hear fishing reports, agri-talk, or religious programming redux. Even some spotty political talk, as well.

Limbaugh saw a void, and filled it. In doing so, he redifined the Talk Format which is currently doing very well. Like him or hate him, all must admit he worked hard to achieve his prominence, and offered 'entertaining' content.

The above talkers might have fared as well as Rush, but only if they offered a 'conservative' alternative to what already dominated the airwaves at the time. Rush could not have reached his pinnacle without competition, and for a long time, there was none for Rush, he was the lone conservative out there. Thankfully, those days are now behind us :-X

 

[fred flintstone]

Myths

The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with Rush's success. Ideological talk show hosts had been going strong since the early 60s (Wally George, Joe Pyne, Bob Grant). Rush had been doing essentially the show he does now in Sacramento under the Fairness Doctrine (and before Rush, Martin Downey had that slot).

Talk radio is an expensive format to do (especially do well). Before Rush, the number of talk stations was limited to less than a hundred stations - mostly major market blow-torches.

Before Rush, talk radio syndication attempts had met with limited success. It was former ABC Radio President Ed McLaughlin who saw an opportunity in the late 80s, despite the failure of talk networks from ABC and NBC. McLaughlin picked Rush from among local hosts working at the time and moved his show to New York. Major market stations were reluctant to take a syndicated show (the belief was syndicated talk would not work). Rush had to do a separate local show for WABC (they carried "best of" segments from the national show on weekends). In other markets, his show was often bumped to evenings or overnights.

Rush was fortunate in that satellite distribution and long-distance technology had reached the point that a national call in show was technically feasible with acceptable sound quality. McLaughlin and Rush were the first to see what was possible with new technology and to make it work. They were smart as well as lucky. But what they did was not an obvious move at the time.

What Rush and McLauglin also did that was different was: (1) Use a Top 40 type personality as a talk show host. (2) Do away with interviews. (3) Make the show completely about the host's point of view. Most talk show hosts (conservative and liberal) continue to immitate that approach. Howard Stern (and to a lesser extent Imus) had already established that a radio show could be built around somebody who in other contexts would be considered an obnoxious blowhard ranting for three or four hours (Howard and Rush might play well on the radio but most people would not invite their radio characters to a dinner party).

 

[kaufcom]

If he got 'lucky', the only place I could see it was the repeal of the horrible 'fairness doctrine'. This allowed smaller market AM's the ability to offer Rush' special brand of commentary, without penalty.

The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with Rush's success in talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine, which was abolished by the Reagan Administration in 1987, never was targetted to radio industry. I challenge you to find one case where the Fairness Doctrine was used to hinder talk radio programming. The Fairness Doctrine was aimed at the TV industry. Remember the infamous "editorial reply" lampooned on Saturday Night Live by Emily Lattella.

Rush's success is attributal to other factors.

1. The needs of AM radio which had just lost about all music stations to the FM band leaving a older skewing male demo to dying AM band.

2. The growing frustration of older right wing white males with alleged biases of the "mainstream" media especially after Clinton was elected President in 1992.

3. The consolidation of the radio industry in the 90's where Clear Channel radio took over talk radio stations serving 35% of the U.S. (Remember before the ascendancy of CC a radio station owner could only operate 7 stations in 7 markets.)

4. The growth of satellite transmission. In the 1980's there was virtually no syndicated programming and satellite transmission was very expensive. Today, syndication accounts for 85% of talk radio programming and satellite transmission is very affordable. Plus the cost conscious radio groups like CC that love cheap satellite programming which allows them to fire local radio people.

Please stop the bringing up the Fairness Doctrine. It had nothing to do with Rush's success.

 

[Radio_Realist]

Like him or hate him, all must admit he worked hard to achieve his prominence, and offered 'entertaining' content.

I don't think anyone can deny that Rush worked hard, or that he worked smart and came up with some good ideas. At the same time, there are dozens, maybe even hundreds of other people attempting to do what Rush did, but only Rush succeeded. That means he also had some measure of luck.

Luck without hard work and smart planning won't bring anyone success. But neither will hard work and smart planning without luck. Some things that look like luck are really carefully applied hard work and smart planning. Being in the right place at the right time is "luck", even if the reason one is where one needs to be is the result of work and planning.

Put another way, without hard work and smart planning, one can never really take advantage of the breaks luck throws your way. But without luck, you'll have no breaks to apply your hard work and smart planning to.

 

[evnlee]

[/quote]

The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with Rush's success in talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine, which was abolished by the Reagan Administration in 1987, never was targetted to radio industry. I challenge you to find one case where the Fairness Doctrine was used to hinder talk radio programming. [/quote]

The Fairness Doctrine, instituted in 1949, mandated that each radio or TV station (a) feature news and (b) offer balanced perspectives. The penalty for noncompliance was, potentially, the loss of a license, thus encouraging broadcasters to offer news and opinion only in their mildest, least controversial form. Yet, the reigning assumption was that speech was being protected by the Fairness Doctrine, not inhibited.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine by Federal Communications Commission chairman Dennis Patrick brought a firestorm of protest. A bill to reinstate the doctrine passed the House 302-102 and the Senate 59-31, before being vetoed by President Reagan.

What led the FCC to this bold move was a 1985 report documenting the doctrine's "chilling effect" on speech.

One historical gem it contained was the campaign launched by the Democratic National Committee after the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty encountered populist opposition. The Kennedy-Johnson administration blamed conservative radio shows, initiating (through the DNC) a system to monitor the airwaves and file extensive "fairness" complaints. As one operative later testified: "Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters" into silence. The FCC concluded that the Fairness Doctrine provided "a pervasive and significant impediment to the broadcasting of controversial issues," and that news broadcasts and diverse viewpoints would flourish in its absence.

The prediction was dead on. Informational formats (news, talk, and public affairs), just 7 percent of all AM stations in 1987, jumped to 28 percent in 1995--dramatic statistical evidence of the doctrine's chilling effect.

Conservatives now worship talk radio, and liberals are scrambling to compete, if not reregulate. In 1993, Democrats rallied to revive the Fairness Doctrine; Democratic congressman Bill Hefner of North Carolina distributed a pro-Fairness Doctrine flyer condemning "TV and Radio Talk Shows that often . . . make inflammatory and derogatory remarks about our public officials." But grassroots outrage over the "Hush Rush [Limbaugh] Law" was given voice via talk radio, and the effort stalled. In 2000, however, the proposal resurfaced in the Democratic party platform.

While it's easy to ridicule the Fairness Doctrine today, it wasn't easy before 1987. Statistical evidence of a chilling effect was unavailable while the doctrine was in effect. And lack of such proof led FCC critics to dismiss the "self-serving anecdotes of the broadcaster," as a Carter-era FCC official put it. The commission needed support, a backer of some prominence to defend its bold initiative from legal and political challenge.

Dan Rather filled that role. The commission's official analysis featured the testimony of the "Managing Editor and Anchor of CBS News" as Exhibit A:

When I was a young reporter, I worked briefly for wire services, small radio stations, and newspapers, and I finally settled into a job at a large radio station owned by the Houston Chronicle. Almost immediately on starting work in that station's newsroom, I became aware of a concern which I had previously barely known existed--the FCC. The journalists at The Chronicle did not worry about it; those at the radio station did. Not only the station manager but the newspeople as well were very much aware of this government presence looking over their shoulders. I can recall newsroom conversations about what the FCC implications of broadcasting a particular report would be. Once a newsperson has to stop and consider what a government agency will think of something he or she wants to put on the air, an invaluable element of freedom has been lost.

Rather was the only celebrity journalist to speak out.

 

[smedge2006]

It would be helpful if you would include the source from which you lifted that post, possibly verbatim.

Dan Rather filled that role. The commission's official analysis featured the testimony of the "Managing Editor and Anchor of CBS News" as Exhibit A:

Considering his career since then, I'd say it's proof that no good deed goes unpunished. He helped the people who would hoist him on his own petard.

 

[evnlee]

It would be helpful if you would include the source from which you lifted that post, possibly verbatim.

Dan Rather filled that role. The commission's official analysis featured the testimony of the "Managing Editor and Anchor of CBS News" as Exhibit A:

Considering his career since then, I'd say it's proof that no good deed goes unpunished. He helped the people who would hoist him on his own petard.

I was challenged to give ONE EXAMPLE where the FD was used to 'hinder talk radio programming'.

I delivered said information, and used one of the left's biggest and best heroes to refute the claim.

Now, I am asked to give the source, so that the insulted leftists can condemn it.

Very Well.

The article was published in the NY Times AND the Boston Globe, titled " Dan Rather's Good Deed " , was composed by Thomas W. Hazlett, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a visiting professor at the Wharton School.

Here is the final paragraph I did not include, so the entire article could be complete:

Conservatives have been rejoicing over Rather's departure. A glance at their own ranks, however, reveals a number of prominent organizations--the Eagle Forum, Accuracy in Media, and the National Rifle Association--that supported the Fairness Doctrine and petitioned the government to extend it. These conservatives got perfectly wrong what Rather got exactly right. Americans ought to clink their glasses one extra time, without irony, for an anchor who helped new networks take sail.

 

[Radio_Realist]

I was challenged to give ONE EXAMPLE where the FD was used to 'hinder talk radio programming'.

I delivered said information, and used one of the left's biggest and best heroes to refute the claim.

The problem is that you didn't provide a clickable link. In this day and age, information that can only be found on the shelves of libraries, or in drawers of microfiche records, or in books one might have to physically pick up, doesn't really exist. Unless you can provide a clickable link to a website that has the information, you haven't really provided what people demand today as a source.

I could list the radio and television stations where I worked in the 1970's where management exercised voluntary prior restraint on what they allowed on their transmitters because they feared the FCC would use the Fairness Doctrine against them. But with no clickable links, that wouldn't mean anything, either. The Fairness Doctrine was to radio carrying political programming what our triad nuclear forces were in the Cold War -- a deterrent that didn't actually have to be used to be effective. The threat of use alone was sufficient to produce the deterrent effect desired.

BTW, and strictly as an aside, does the term "Fairness Doctrine" seem to be as big a misnomer as calling liberal talk radio "progressive"? How could requiring equal time for one, and only one, polar opposite opinion to provide intellectual balance possibly be a "fair" use of the airwaves in times when there are often far more than only two opposing points of view on any given topic? Those are both rhetorical questions.

 

[kaufcom]

does the term "Fairness Doctrine" seem to be as big a misnomer as calling liberal talk radio "progressive"? How could requiring equal time for one, and only one, polar opposite opinion to provide intellectual balance possibly be a "fair" use of the airwaves in times when there are often far more than only two opposing points of view on any given topic? Those are both rhetorical questions.

That's 19 times you've brought up this point.

"Between repetition and forgetting, it is a marvel that a new thought ever struggles into existence." Mason Cooley