• 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

The Fairness Doctrine: It's Baaaaaaack! (Maybe)

No, I am not suggesting that only majority opinions be allowed on the radio - I am simply suggesting that the marketplace should rule not the government.

I am not confusing the Fairness Doctrine with Equal Time rules! I do believe the liberal element in the US Congress and in America would like to see a Fairness Doctrine that includes equal time rules. I submit to you that if Liberal talk was a major, nationwide success, they would be quiet and I stand by the statement that a new, government mandated "fairness" in talk radio would drive the format out of business.

Talk radio needs the same first amendment protections enjoyed by the print and on-line media.

While talk radio may have coexisted with the Fairness Doctrine of the 1960s and 70s, it was predominently in the major markets. Talk radio really didn't grow in markets below 25 until the last 20 years (without a Fairness Doctrine).
 
XTalker said:
A Fairness Doctrine that would require radio stations to offer precise equal time to all sides of an issue would kill talk radio in all but the very large markets. Stations would be burried in paperwork, keeping track of who said what and for how long! The record keeping alone would paralyze stations in all but the biggest cities and the format - the forum for free expression - would disappear for most Americans.

You see, the liberal left feels fairness is not about open discussion of issues, or free speech by host, guests and listeners. The liberal left thinks fairness is about forcing exposure and discussion of their view of the issue without regard for what the majority wants.

The reason talk radio is successful is because of listeners who tune in in large numbers and purchase the products and services offered by advertisers on talk radio stations. Air America has proven liberals can't compete in the open marketplace!

***On this point, your comments about Air America are possibly correct, though I would not go so far as to say liberals can't compete. I would say Air America's programming couldn't compete. I am often humored when I hear the assertion that the reason Air America did not succeed is that they were put on "lousy" signals. While this may be true, in some cases, let me make a case in point on one market I am very familiar with:

Columbus, Ohio. Air America was carried on 1230 AM. It's not a flamethrower signal, but, at least during the daytime hours, the signal is pretty well serviceable. Back in the 90's, it was the first "Columbus" station to carry Rush Limbaugh.
I know. I worked there then.

What happened? Limbaugh took the station from nowhere to about a 4 share in that daypart. (The biggest numbers that station had in probably 5-10 years.) Rush was successful on that "lousy" signal.

Air America? About a 1. Had AA gotten a 2 on that stick, (Half of Limbaugh's numbers), I would have called it
successful.

Air America had ideas. What they didn't have a lot of was people who knew how to make their points in an entertaining way. I still think so-called "Progressive" talk radio might work. But, they've got to find some real broadcasters who are passionate in their beliefs who aren't "shrill", who can project some humor in their programs and be entertaining. To me, Franken was dull. The others? Often way too shrill. Ed Schultz seems to be gaining some momentum with his show, so we'll see.

By the way, I am a conservative. But, I'm a broadcaster first.***

It wouldn't only destroy talk radio, but more than likely, would see the further demise of news on the radio as well.
Click to expand...
 
XTalker said:
I am not confusing the Fairness Doctrine with Equal Time rules! I do believe the liberal element in the US Congress and in America would like to see a Fairness Doctrine that includes equal time rules.
Click to expand...

Yes you are. The FD was eliminated in 1987 the "Equal Time Rules" which apply to political candidates (not opinions of radio talk show hosts) is still in effect. The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time.
 
barooosk, you are obviously confused. This is a conversation about what MIGHT come from the Democrat controlled Congress in the form of a new fairness doctrine and had nothing to do with the existing equal time provisions. Look, I spent 40 years in the business, 12 in news talk. I know what the rules are, so don't tell me I am confused!

The liberal left wants to silence conservative talk shows. The only way the could do it successfully is to impose some form of equal time accountability on them or the stations that carry them through a new, so-called fairness doctrine. thus forcing the stations to engage in a great deal of record keeping.

Hey, maybe it will help bring back a need for AM stereo - stations could run Rush and his conservative buddies in the RIGHT channel and Air America, Ed Schults, and Alan Combs in the LEFT channel during the same time period. Then the listener can decide.

Oh, wait, listeners can do that already!
 
XTalker said:
barooosk, you are obviously confused. This is a conversation about what MIGHT come from the Democrat controlled Congress in the form of a new fairness doctrine and had nothing to do with the existing equal time provisions. Look, I spent 40 years in the business, 12 in news talk. I know what the rules are, so don't tell me I am confused!
Click to expand...

You're the one who's confused. Didn't you say.

I do believe the liberal element in the US Congress and in America would like to see a Fairness Doctrine that includes equal time rules. I submit to you that if Liberal talk was a major, nationwide success, they would be quiet and I stand by the statement that a new, government mandated "fairness" in talk radio would drive the format out of business.

I was simply telling you that the FD has nothing to do with the Equal Time rules. Why would a new FD contain Equal Time rules, when the Equal Time Rules are already in effect!
 
Perhaps we're being super-technical here.

Sec. 315 of the 1934 Act (as amended) requires "equal time" for qualified federal candidates. This is what's called the "Equal Time Rule".

The original, now defunct, Fairness Doctrine was a corollary to Sec. 315 and required only reasonable opportunity to respond to those who were personally attacked on the air, and a reasonable airing of all sides and views on a topic or issue. There was no requirement that the reasonable airing of all views had to come from an outside source--it could be done by the host, a caller, etc.

We don't know what a *new* Fairness Doctrine might require, but it's not a far leap (considering the public statements made by Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, and others in Congress and in peripheral media) that a new FD may require an equal time for views--ala the Sec. 315 equal time for candidates rule.
 
AKLes said:
And, of course, fairness demands that any new 'Fairness Doctrine' be equally applied to all print media.
Click to expand...

And ALL radio formats. I'm looking forward to getting my favorite '50s Oldies station back.
 
Thanks for clarifying your statement.

Johnny Morgan said:
Perhaps we're being super-technical here.

Sec. 315 of the 1934 Act (as amended) requires "equal time" for qualified federal candidates. This is what's called the "Equal Time Rule".

The original, now defunct, Fairness Doctrine was a corollary to Sec. 315 and required only reasonable opportunity to respond to those who were personally attacked on the air, and a reasonable airing of all sides and views on a topic or issue. There was no requirement that the reasonable airing of all views had to come from an outside source--it could be done by the host, a caller, etc.

We don't know what a *new* Fairness Doctrine might require, but it's not a far leap (considering the public statements made by Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, and others in Congress and in peripheral media) that a new FD may require an equal time for views--ala the Sec. 315 equal time for candidates rule.
Click to expand...
 
I didn't clarify my statement at all, since I never used "equal time" in any posts on this topic here.

I was hoping to help out everyone posting here, so that if someone uses "equal time" they may not necessarily be using it to mean Sec. 315 access for candidates.

Plus, it never hurts to have the laws in front of you.
 
Should anyone manage to craft...and get passed....a bill designed to bring true equallity of political content to broadcasting it will be most interesting to see who squeals most loudly.

I'd expect most commercial operators to knuckle under and eschew controversy; giving new rise to music formats (but be careful about lyrics) and perhaps discussion of gardening though one certainly would need to be careful about doing anything effective about our insect-friends.

On the other hand, I'd expect CNN, NPR, PBS, (all enjoying use of the public airwaves, CNN being carried on many radio stations), to emulate swine as they realize that the knife being wielded against the Evil Fox cuts from both sides. Would they achieve balance or take up the cry for more non-controversial programming?

While we're creating a Ministry of Balance we should also be creating a Ministry of Truth charged with things like licensing journalists (broadcast AND print) to ensure that everybody understands "fairness" and is appropriately sanctioned when rules are broken.
 
The last time that Fairness Doctrine was in play was in 1987 when the Congress passed a law codifying the Doctrine. The vote in the House was 301 to 102 with a lot Republicans voting for it. Here's the question. Did the following politicians for or against making the Fairness Doctrine the law of land.

Jesse Helms, R-North Carolina
Newt Ginrich, R-Georgia
None of the above
All of the above
 
If you're talking about S. 742, which is the only one that passed both the House and the Senate (and which Reagan vetoed), it was a voice vote in the House.

The House companion, H.R. 1934 was voted on and passed 302-102. But it was replaced by S. 742 at conference.

But it's all a moot point because it failed to become law. And the fact that two long-gone Republicans appear to have voted for it proves what, exactly?

We're talking about NOW, not then. That was 20 years ago. It's time to "MoveOn" (as the left used to say).
 
Johnny Morgan said:
If you're talking about S. 742, which is the only one that passed both the House and the Senate (and which Reagan vetoed), it was a voice vote in the House.

The House companion, H.R. 1934 was voted on and passed 302-102. But it was replaced by S. 742 at conference.

But it's all a moot point because it failed to become law. And the fact that two long-gone Republicans appear to have voted for it proves what, exactly?

We're talking about NOW, not then. That was 20 years ago. It's time to "MoveOn" (as the left used to say).
Click to expand...

I guess that's a vote for "D"
 
Did the following politicians for or against making the Fairness Doctrine the law of land.

Last time I looked, the two you mention are no longer in office. And, the Fairness Doctrine of 1987 was a different law from the Fairness Doctrine of 2007 which hasn't been written or introduced into Congress yet.

Could you explain to us what the votes of two legislators who are no longer in office on a bill that isn't the same bill that is being planned for introduction two decades later has to do with anything?
 
Typical liberal dodge. When you are beaten on the original subject, change the subject!
 
Radio_Realist said:
Last time I looked, the two you mention are no longer in office. And, the Fairness Doctrine of 1987 was a different law from the Fairness Doctrine of 2007 which hasn't been written or introduced into Congress yet.
Click to expand...

The politicians that are pushing legislation to reintroduce the FD are proposing the same rules that were in effect on January 1, 1987 (before Reagan vetoed the bill supporting an FD that was passed with a substantial majority in the Congress.) You can read the text of those rules on several websites.
 
The politicians that are pushing legislation to reintroduce the FD are proposing the same rules that were in effect on January 1, 1987 (before Reagan vetoed the bill supporting an FD that was passed with a substantial majority in the Congress.) You can read the text of those rules on several websites.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. The politicians are pushing no legislation because nothing has been introduced. In fact, something may not even be drafted yet.

They may be pushing ideas because folks like Dennis Kucinich have this fancy idea that what ails their electoral and ideological failures of the past 15 years is not in fact popular non-acceptance of what they're peddling. Oh yes, and the idea that conservatives run the airwaves and they want a piece of the pie too--by force.

And most certainly, NO ONE has introduced or pushed the old rules.

If there is someone who has done what you baselessly allege, show us--citations to the record, to introduced bills, to draft legislation, to ANYONE citing the old rules. Otherwise, stop playing fast and loose with language you know is patently untrue. Your sleight of hand maneuvers have eagle eyes, who have studied this stuff, watching you.
 
The politicians that are pushing legislation to reintroduce the FD are proposing the same rules that were in effect on January 1, 1987

Where did you see any authoritative report that Kuchinich merely wants to re-introduce the old Fairness Doctrine? And your own personal blog doesn't count as an "authoritative" report.
 
Radio_Realist said:
The politicians that are pushing legislation to reintroduce the FD are proposing the same rules that were in effect on January 1, 1987

Where did you see any authoritative report that Kuchinich merely wants to re-introduce the old Fairness Doctrine? And your own personal blog doesn't count as an "authoritative" report.
Click to expand...

now, RR, you know better then to ask this question. Barooosk has time and again dodged these kinds of in-depth analysis, it just doesn't mesh with his 'bloggo-blabber' ::)

Dont' expect 'Rooskie to answer, and if he does, it wont be with any valid facts or links. See the Phil Boyce thread for examples.

Boyce stated that he thought 'the genie was out of the bottle' in terms of the FD. I assume he was being polite. I would say ( conjecture, here ) ' there is too much $$$ being made with conservative talk radio now. Expect the lobbyists to kill any real chance of a FD returning'.
 
There are currently two bills being evaluated that deal with broadcast re-regulation in general and the Fairness Doctrine in particular. One entitled "Meaningful Expression of Democracy in America Act" HR4710 was introduced by Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) with 37 co-sponsors. It includes the following statement relating to reintroduction of FD

...Broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. The enforcement and application of the requirement imposed by this 4 subsection shall be consistent with the rules and policies of the Commission in effect on January 1, 1987.''....

It has currently been referred to House Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom