• 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

Left Beats Right In Seattle In 25-54

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

I thought it was the first time that I mentioned that the "Fairness Doctrine" was actually quite unfair to anyone who had a third perspective on an issue, something that wasn't covered by either of two extreme polar opposites.
 
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]

evnlee said:
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.

Then how do you explain the existense of talkers like

Joe Pyne
Wally George
Bob Grant
Alan Berg (silenced by an assasin not the FCC)
Michael Jackson
Imus
and many others

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.

Good try, as I pointed out in my post, music radio was abandoning the AM dial in droves in 1980's. Yes, talk radio saved the AM radio by filling up the holes. Overall, news/talk while the number one radio format has constituted about 16% of the radio audience for the past 15 years. In fact, the real growth of news/talk occurred in the 1980's when satellite transmission increased the count of news/talk stations from 200 to 800 -- an increase of 400%. It's doubled again since that time.

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[/b]

Do you blame him. In the early 90's talk radio was 99% conservative. Now at least 20% of the talk radio audience has access to liberal talkers.

I repeat my main point. Identify even one case where the Fairness Doctrine was used to limit radio talk. I can site many times that it was used to regulate speech on TV.
 
Then how do you explain the existense of talkers like

The Fairness Doctrine did not totally and absolutely prevent news/talk format radio. No one has claimed that it did. The claims made were that the Fairness Doctrine inhibited the development of the news/talk format, especially the development of news/talk variations in which the host espoused a specific, particular point of view.

As I mentioned, there were station operators who were so frightened of possible license challenges under the Fairness Doctrine that they wouldn't even consider any sort of political talk show. The fact that some station operators were intimidated by the Fairness Doctrine to not program opinionated news/talk does not mean that all station operators were so inhibited.

In fact, the real growth of news/talk occurred in the 1980's when satellite transmission increased the count of news/talk stations from 200 to 800 -- an increase of 400%. It's doubled again since that time.

It is impossible to attribute which of the many contributing factors was the one single root cause of any situation. It took the coming together of many different factors concurrently to bring about the situation that exists today.

The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine was one very important contributing factor. That's something that cannot be denied.

But the development of satellite technology as an economical delivery system for nationally syndicated programming was also important, and cannot be disregarded.

The growth of more popular format music radio on the FM band at the expense of the elevator music formats that kept FM from achieving maximum audience popularity at the expense of inferior sounding AM stations also played a large part in forcing station operators to find programming alternatives for AM in which AM's bad sound quality wasn't such an obstacle. On top of that, there is now the new phenomena of news/talk on FM! In Pittsburgh, Clear Channel's NewsTalk 104.7 is eating KDKA's lunch!

And the example of Rush Limbaugh's success with on his unique, new variation on older talk formats prompted station operators to believe that they could replicate his success for themselves played a large role.

Anyone who claims that any one of those reasons is the one and only single reason for the growth and success of news/talk radio is wrong.
 
The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine was one very important contributing factor. That's something that cannot be denied.

Yes, I can deny that. I was in radio in the 80s, and people who ran AM radio stations were not sitting around saying "Yay! The fairness doctrine's dead! Let's do talk radio!" They were concerned about the gradual withering of music formats, the cost of going talk, of finding good talent, and advertiser pressure,
not government pressure. Talk radio was pulling a 2-4 share in those days, and managers wondered how to grow that share. They worried that appealing to younger audiences by putting on more shocking personalities, who would hang up on callers and say nasty things about them, might drive away the funeral homes and adult living care centers that were the mainstay of talk radio's commercial business back then. They didn't worry about the Fairness Doctrine. It was a dead letter long before 1987.

This "fairness doctrine repeal created talk radio" is a bit of revisionist history created by someone writing a newspaper or magazine article who noticed the date of FD repeal (1987), and the birth of Limbaugh syndication (1988), and drew a false, unsupported correlation between the two. It has been repeated and repeated till it grew into gospel. It's nonsense.
 
barooosk said:
I repeat my main point. Identify even one case where the Fairness Doctrine was used to limit radio talk. I can site many times that it was used to regulate speech on TV.

I did just that. See Dan Rather's commentary.

Don't you agree with what Rather said? Are you saying Dan Rather just 'made that whole scenario up' to prove his point? ;)

As to the other points, I will take them into consideration. I was not in the business in the 80's, so I cannot speak to it. I can only go on what others who were there ( smedge,Rather,etc..) are now saying.

'The abolition of the Fairness Doctrine was one very important contributing factor. That's something that cannot be denied.

But the development of satellite technology as an economical delivery system for nationally syndicated programming was also important, and cannot be disregarded. '

I think Radio Realist makes the most sense to me at this point, so I will concede to R.R.
 
I was in radio in the 80s, and people who ran AM radio stations were not sitting around saying "Yay! The fairness doctrine's dead! Let's do talk radio!"

I'm impressed!! Are you saying that you worked simultaneously at every single AM radio station in the entire United States and knew that out of the thousands of stations out there, not a single management person at any station in the entire country didn't reconsider switching to a political talk radio format as a result of the lifting of the Fairness Doctrine? You know for an absolute fact what the internal thought processes were of every single AM radio station manager in the entire country, and that not a single one of them was influenced in the least by that particular regulatory change?

I've known some extremely experienced and knowledgeable radio people in my day, but you're the first one I've encountered who has indisputable first hand knowledge of every single AM radio station in the entire country. Better yet, this was before the invention of the internet, so you acquired this wealth of knowledge through other means.

What happened? Why aren't you still simultaneously working at every single AM radio station in the entire country? Did you decide to cut back, or were you the victim of downsizing?
 
Radio_Realist said:
I was in radio in the 80s, and people who ran AM radio stations were not sitting around saying "Yay! The fairness doctrine's dead! Let's do talk radio!"

I'm impressed!! Are you saying that you worked simultaneously at every single AM radio station in the entire United States and knew that out of the thousands of stations out there, not a single management person at any station in the entire country didn't reconsider switching to a political talk radio format as a result of the lifting of the Fairness Doctrine? You know for an absolute fact what the internal thought processes were of every single AM radio station manager in the entire country, and that not a single one of them was influenced in the least by that particular regulatory change?

I've known some extremely experienced and knowledgeable radio people in my day, but you're the first one I've encountered who has indisputable first hand knowledge of every single AM radio station in the entire country. Better yet, this was before the invention of the internet, so you acquired this wealth of knowledge through other means.

What happened? Why aren't you still simultaneously working at every single AM radio station in the entire country? Did you decide to cut back, or were you the victim of downsizing?

Ouch! Smedge just got Colbert'ed :D

Now, RR, I know you aren't conservative, one could gather that by your previous posts.

But, LOOK OUT, now that you have disagreed with the lunatic left, you are sure to be labeled one!!

You, sir or madam, have EARNED YOUR MONIKER.

Well done!
 
Now, RR, I know you aren't conservative, one could gather that by your previous posts.

Actually, I do lean conservative, though I'm closer to libertarian. That's why I'm such a noodge about the unfairness of the Fairness Doctrine's bipolarness.
 
So much misinformation

The Fairness Doctrine applied to editorials. It never was applied to talk radio or to news.

The wording specified opposing viewpoint(s). Broadcasters, to make life simple, decided one opposing viewpoint was sufficient.

Radio news people have always avoided controversy because that means they have spend time and energy doing actual research and reporting. Radio gets sound. Newspapers do actual reporting.

Rather is not a liberal. He is a self-promoting opportunitist.
 
Radio_Realist said:
Now, RR, I know you aren't conservative, one could gather that by your previous posts.

Actually, I do lean conservative, though I'm closer to libertarian. That's why I'm such a noodge about the unfairness of the Fairness Doctrine's bipolarness.

I stand corrected.

I also agree with you about labels, it's humorous to me to see 'liberals' branding themselves 'progressives', but I also thought 'compassionate conservative' was a hoot, too ;)


Fred writes:

"The Fairness Doctrine applied to editorials. It never was applied to talk radio or to news.

The wording specified opposing viewpoint(s). Broadcasters, to make life simple, decided one opposing viewpoint was sufficient.

Radio news people have always avoided controversy because that means they have spend time and energy doing actual research and reporting. Radio gets sound. Newspapers do actual reporting. "

Fred may have to take that up with Rather.

But, it's pretty funny to see that radio newspeople don't so 'actual research and reporting'.

The broadcasters have a federal oversight with the FCC to make sure what they are reporting is factual,right? Newspapers do not.

The only checks and balances with newpapers is court related. A newspaper cannot LOSE thier license if found that they purposefully ran incorrect news articles. They only have to issue a 'retraction', and only if they feel they are in error.
 
evnlee said:
barooosk said:
I repeat my main point. Identify even one case where the Fairness Doctrine was used to limit radio talk. I can site many times that it was used to regulate speech on TV.

I did just that. See Dan Rather's commentary.

Don't you agree with what Rather said? Are you saying Dan Rather just 'made that whole scenario up' to prove his point? ;)

As FF said Rather is just an "opportunist." FF also said in his post that the Fairness Doctrine was used to regulate editiorials on TV. I have reviewed numerous FCC "report and orders" on TV editorials, but have not found one targetting radio. That's what I am referring to when I ask you to produce one case where the Fairness Doctrine was used to limit radio talk.

As to the other points, I will take them into consideration. I was not in the business in the 80's, so I cannot speak to it.

Thank you

I think Radio Realist makes the most sense to me at this point, so I will concede to R.R.

If you need to site RR you are not strengthening your argument. He's the guy who has offered us 19 posts over the past three weeks harping on the differences between "liberal" and "progressive" talk radio. His response to this threat was just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

The fact that some station operators were intimidated by the Fairness Doctrine to not program opinionated news/talk does not mean that all station operators were so inhibited.

It is impossible to attribute which of the many contributing factors was the one single root cause of any situation. It took the coming together of many different factors concurrently to bring about the situation that exists today.

Anyone who claims that any one of those reasons is the one and only single reason for the growth and success of news/talk radio is wrong.

Actually, I do lean conservative, though I'm closer to libertarian. That's why I'm such a noodge about the unfairness of the Fairness Doctrine's bipolarness.


What facts or insights did RR bring up in this post?
 
barooosk said:
Identify even one case where the Fairness Doctrine was used to limit radio talk.

What facts or insights did RR bring up in this post?

'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.'

Dan Rather.


'The fact that some station operators were intimidated by the Fairness Doctrine to not program opinionated news/talk does not mean that all station operators were so inhibited.

It is impossible to attribute which of the many contributing factors was the one single root cause of any situation. It took the coming together of many different factors concurrently to bring about the situation that exists today.
'

Radio Realist.

Now for something that doesn't make any sense at all?

'Beck will be the sixth right wing talk radio host with a cable show. The others are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Don Imus, and John Gibson.'

Bruce Kaufman

Don Imus?! Conservative?! Cable Show?!

Have you seen/heard Imus lately? Isn't his 'cable show' just a tv airing of his 'radio show'? You consider that non-cable show 'conservative'?

Wkipedia on Imus:

Because the show draws more affluent and less politically partisan demographic compared to other radio talk shows, it is able to demand advertising rates comparable to competing radio shows with higher ratings.

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

From Businessweek:

Imus’s show, while politically charged, skews neither right nor left, which makes it a refreshing switch from the wing-nut harangue of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or the Air America Crew.


http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/04/imus_audience_s.html

Thanks for playing Baroosk! Time to re-up the meds, buddy ;)
 
That's what I am referring to when I ask you to produce one case where the Fairness Doctrine was used to limit radio talk.

Are you a lawyer in real life? That is a very lawyerish question.

It's one thing to ask a rhetorical question almost two decades after the fact to make the point that the FCC did not ever actually use the Fairness Doctrine or its related provisions regarding license renewals against any radio station operator. As I pointed out, the effectiveness of the Fairness Doctrine at inhibiting controversial program content wasn't because of punishments of broadcasters under the provisions of the rules. The effectiveness came from the threat of punishment under the Fairness Doctrine.

Looking back in safe retrospect with clear 20-20 hindsight, it's easy to say "No radio station was ever charged for a violation of the Fairness Doctrine". That negates the simple truth that until 1987, very few radio station operators were willing to risk being the first station operator to have the Doctrine used against them. One need not hit people over the head with a large heavy club to get them to stay in line. Simply carrying a large heavy club can be quite effective as a deterrent to actions you don't want to see carried out. There were plenty of people in the government who didn't hesitate to quietly remind broadcasters that the Fairness Doctrine might not remain tucked away and unused if they didn't voluntarily stay in line.

He's the guy who has offered us 19 posts over the past three weeks harping on the differences between "liberal" and "progressive" talk radio.

Actually, despite your obsession over my obsession, at least I got my obsession correct. My 19 posts weren't about the differences between liberal and progressive talk radio at all. You were so obsessed with counting my references that you totally missed the point. I never harped on the differences between "liberal" and "progressive" talk radio. I harped on the similarities. I harped on the fact that what some people mistakenly call "progressive" talk radio is, in fact, "liberal" talk radio. I harped on the fact that "progressive talk radio" and "liberal talk radio" are the exact same thing, with no difference between them other than the fact that "progressive" is an incorrect euphemism for "liberal".

If you're going to obsess over my obsession, at least get what it is you are obsessing over right.

What facts or insights did RR bring up in this post?

You listed many of them. I suspect that you are simply angry that someone can apply lessons learned from various other industries and disciplines to the way that the radio industry operates and challenge the conventional wisdom of all the good old boys in the radio club. I suspect that you feel threatened when an outsider's fresh perspective on the radio industry is more accurate that the conventional wisdom of the industry insiders.
 
evnlee said:
Now for something that doesn't make any sense at all?

'Beck will be the sixth right wing talk radio host with a cable show. The others are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Don Imus, and John Gibson.'

Bruce Kaufman

Okay... so Imus is not a complete right winger. Are you challenging my assertion that the cable channels are not skewing to the right with their opinion program?

Evelyn... please don't post my real name on this board. If you do it again I will submit a complaint to the monitors.
 
Radio_Realist said:
That's what I am referring to when I ask you to produce one case where the Fairness Doctrine was used to limit radio talk.

Are you a lawyer in real life? That is a very lawyerish question.

...the effectiveness of the Fairness Doctrine at inhibiting controversial program content wasn't because of punishments of broadcasters under the provisions of the rules. The effectiveness came from the threat of punishment under the Fairness Doctrine.

...the simple truth that until 1987, very few radio station operators were willing to risk being the first station operator to have the Doctrine used against them.

...One need not hit people over the head with a large heavy club to get them to stay in line. Simply carrying a large heavy club can be quite effective as a deterrent to actions you don't want to see carried out.

You accuse me of being too "lawyerish" (sic). Your views sound like they're from a psychologist or psychic. Fact is the Fairness Doctrine was only targetted to TV. The FCC didn't care much about radio. They were focused on TV. If a bunch of gutless radio owners were afraid of something that didn't existl. I'd call that paranoia.

He's the guy who has offered us 19 posts over the past three weeks harping on the differences between "liberal" and "progressive" talk radio.

Actually, despite your obsession over my obsession, at least I got my obsession correct. My 19 posts weren't about the differences between liberal and progressive talk radio at all. You were so obsessed with counting my references that you totally missed the point. I never harped on the differences between "liberal" and "progressive" talk radio. I harped on the similarities. I harped on the fact that what some people mistakenly call "progressive" talk radio is, in fact, "liberal" talk radio. I harped on the fact that "progressive talk radio" and "liberal talk radio" are the exact same thing, with no difference between them other than the fact that "progressive" is an incorrect euphemism for "liberal".

If you're going to obsess over my obsession, at least get what it is you are obsessing over right.

That makes 20 times
 
If a bunch of gutless radio owners were afraid of something that didn't existl. I'd call that paranoia.

Whether they were gutless or not is beside the point. Most radio station owners are gutless by definition. Gutlessness seems to be one of the main criteria for getting into radio in the first place.

And whether the correct term is paranoia or not is beside the point. The only point that matters is that as long as a significant number of radio station operators believed that the Fairness Doctrine would be used against them if they broadcast controversial political opinion programming, then that belief inhibited their actions. If you want to call the fear of punishment from the FCC that inhibited their actions "paranoia", fine. You can even call it "progressive paranoia" if that tickles your fancy.

At least you've demonstrated that you understand what we've been telling you, even if your ego forbids you from simply coming out and saying so.

That makes 20 times

Twenty time that I've obsessed, or 20 times that you weren't capable of understanding what it was that I was obsessing about?

I'm starting to regret that I didn't start a running count of how many times you've posted your running count.
 
barooosk said:
evnlee said:
Now for something that doesn't make any sense at all?

'Beck will be the sixth right wing talk radio host with a cable show. The others are Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Joe Scarborough, Don Imus, and John Gibson.'

Bruce Kaufman

Okay... so Imus is not a complete right winger. Are you challenging my assertion that the cable channels are not skewing to the right with their opinion program?

Evelyn... please don't post my real name on this board. If you do it again I will submit a complaint to the monitors.

This is just too much.

The guy uses his 'blog' as his sign off , which HE put his name on.

Then he get's mad at me for using his own words as quotes, and threatens to complain, but in doing so, POSTS HIS OWN NAME HIMSELF.

Hilarious!
 
More about liberal talk radio, as opposed to liberal talk radio that is called "progressive".

I found this on one of the most respected sources for radio information on the internet. It's an unimpeachable source, so authoritative that anything on it should be regarded as radio Gospel.

I quote:

Liberal Talk Radio Takes Off

Liberal talk radio has been steadily growing since Air America Radio launched in a handful of markets in April of 2004. Now 18 months later, the fledgling liberal talk radio network is carried in 70 markets serving over 60% of the country. However, despite the steady growth of AAR and the emergence of a few dozen other liberal talk radio hosts, the talk radio landscape is still dominated by conservative talkers. Conservative talk radio gets over 85% of the share of talk radio listeners. The other 15% is divided between liberal talk radio and non-political talkers like Dr. Laura, Dr. Joy Brown, and Phil Hendrie.
[EDIT]

In that entire article, written by an industry expert and posted in an authoritative industry source, the word "progressive" isn't used even once!

And for that record, that's # 21.

[EDIT=copyright infringement. PLUS no source provided]
 
evnlee said:
This is just too much.

The guy uses his 'blog' as his sign off , which HE put his name on.

Then he get's mad at me for using his own words as quotes, and threatens to complain, but in doing so, POSTS HIS OWN NAME HIMSELF.

Hilarious!

Evelyn...I may have my name listed on my blog, but I do not use my name when I post on the Radio Info Board. Why do you have a hard time understanding this?... Barooosk
 
RR...thanks for plugging my blog!

Radio_Realist said:
More about liberal talk radio, as opposed to liberal talk radio that is called "progressive".

I found this on one of the most respected sources for radio information on the internet. It's an unimpeachable source, so authoritative that anything on it should be regarded as radio Gospel.

I quote:

Liberal Talk Radio Takes Off

Liberal talk radio has been steadily growing since Air America Radio launched in a handful of markets in April of 2004. Now 18 months later, the fledgling liberal talk radio network is carried in 70 markets serving over 60% of the country. However, despite the steady growth of AAR and the emergence of a few dozen other liberal talk radio hosts, the talk radio landscape is still dominated by conservative talkers. Conservative talk radio gets over 85% of the share of talk radio listeners. The other 15% is divided between liberal talk radio and non-political talkers like Dr. Laura, Dr. Joy Brown, and Phil Hendrie. In the top 25 markets there are three stations featuring conservative talk for every one station doing liberal talk. Typically, top right wing talkers like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are getting shares of 4 and 5 while liberal talkers like Al Franken and Randi Rhodes are getting shares of 1 and 1.5. Stations featuring conservative talk are more powerful and commercially successful than liberal talk stations. For example, here in Los Angeles, Rush Limbaugh is on the 50,000-watt blowtorch station KFI 640-AM, that can be heard from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border. I can't even hear the liberal talk stations from San Diego, KLSD and Los Angeles, KTLK on my car radio here in South Orange County.

Yet the growth of liberal talk radio over the past year and half has been very impressive. I attended a talk radio seminar hosted by Democracy Radio in Washington, DC in January of 2004. At that time, it was still four months before the start of AAR and Ed Schultz, who recently gained his 100th affiliated station was a talk radio host in Fargo, ND. I remember thinking how pathetic it was that we couldn't get a liberal talk radio host here in Los Angeles. (KABC had just canned Michael Jackson and Gloria Alred) and that even in San Francisco, that hotbed of liberalism, you had to stay up past 10 pm to hear to Bernie Ward and Ray Talifafero.

I remember what all the pundits (especially the right wing pundits) were saying when AAR was preparing to launch. They said liberal talk radio will never get off the ground. Liberals are too nuanced. They don't know how to succeed as talk radio hosts. The pundits noted that efforts by Mario Cuomo and Jerry Brown to do talk radio shows had failed and that AAR would certainly meet a similar fate. They chortled when AAR stumbled at the outset, when their original CEO, Evan Cohen, bounced a few checks and the network lost its affiliates in Chicago and Los Angeles.

But then a funny thing happened. While all the headlines were being generated about AAR's financial problems, the network had quietly succeeded to generate an audience in Portland, OR on KPOJ. That station which was owned by the radio industry largest group owner, Clear Channel, was converted from a struggling standards station which generated a share below one to a hot liberal talk station with a share of over 3 after its first book in the summer of 2004.

Ironically, it was Clear Channel, which gave 95% of its political money to Republicans and was the leading owner and operator of conservative talk radio that made AAR a success. Clear Channel owns twenty-seven of AAR’s affiliates and 65% of the network's listeners are tuning in to a CC station. Why did this happen? Why did it take 15 years after to emergence of Rush Limbaugh to get liberal talk radio off the ground? Why did a Texas based, Republican friendly, company become the networks prime benefactor. I'll answer those questions and more in the next edition of the Talking Radio Blog.


In that entire article, written by an industry expert and posted in an authoritative industry source, the word "progressive" isn't used even once!

And for that record, that's # 21.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom