• 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

T

The Batman

Guest
Twenty years ago, near the end of the so-called "Reagan Revolution", the Fairness Doctrine died.

John McCain and others killed a recent effort to revive it.

The question is: Should the government demand fairness on the airwaves or should the marketplace decide what is fair and what is not?

Put simply, government regulation of speech on radio and television or not?

My feeling are mixed.

Tony Lyndell Williams
 
The Fairness Doctrine is not govt regulation of speech. It is simply to let opposing sides air their views on a licensee with a stewardship to serve the public. The Fairness Doctrine often got confused with the Equal Time provision. Equal time was for political candidates. The Fairness Doctrine was for controversial issues.
 
The Communications Act of 1934, set in language equal to any of the great documents which define our nation, the standards and regulations of American Broadcasting. This document set in motion the very best possible circumstances for a Broadcast Licensee; "....to operate in the public interest, as a public trustee." Those operating demands provided the best possible balance between Artistry and Anarchy, Service and Savagery, Dependability and Degeneracy, Vigilance and Venom....to the benefit of the People.

In 1974, like every other D.J. without a shred of R.F. understanding, I got my 3rd Class Radiotelephone License w/Broadcast Endorsement. The regulations we had to memorize and execute, forced us to think beyond ourselves....to the benefit of our communities.

The objective of those standards and regulations was to provide society with a consistent advocate of safety, truth, and community stewardship....to the benefit of Everyone.

The Communications Act of 1934 mandated Service.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 eradicated all of it. Now, an American Broadcasts licensee operates in the stockholder interest, as a fiduciary handmaiden of the New York Stock Exchange. We traded FCC inspectors for SEC inspectors, Sponsors for Sales quotas, Responsibility for Renegade Profit, Broadcasters for Board-Ops....To the benefit of the transitory revenue spike.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates Savagery.

The Fairness Doctrine is an invitation to any Broadcaster to listen in equal measure to speech. Many have said it would ruin Talk Radio as we know it. If all Talk Radio is an endless stream of narrow-mindedness, perhaps a bit of ruination is due....After all, doesn't being fair benefit us all? Indeed, can listening to someone with "opposing viewpoints" ever hurt an honest steward of Truth? Or has today's business-oriented Broadcasting also given Truth the rest of its career off in favor of profit over loss?

It's been eleven long years since Broadcasters traded conscience for cash. I believe it's time to reclaim our place in society as public trustees, and let the Wall Street money men fend for themselves. And yes, if that means we have to hear the other side of the discussion, then by all means let's make it so....

....to the benefit of the Listener.

Jon-David Wells
The Wells Report
 
The Batman said:
The question is: Should the government demand fairness on the airwaves or should the marketplace decide what is fair and what is not?
Click to expand...

On this particular topic, I'll refer you over to an extremely lengthy thread in the "FCC Policy Debate" forum here on radio-info.com. Go take a look at that and you'll read more opinion on this particular topic than you probably want to read.
 
TheRover said:
What a "Fairness Doctrine" for MUsic Played on Radio.....

Equal Time for Deep Tracks IN ALL #$%##$ Formats ! ! ! ! !
Click to expand...

You just don't get that 'deep tracks' is programming suicide for any station attempting to stay as a profitable radio station.

If you don't believe me, take a look at KZPS. They went from their nice safe, boring classic rock station, drawing a 2.5 in the ratings, to "Lone Star", playing a lot of deep tracks, unfamilar music not widely known by the vast majority of their listeners.

And what happened. The went from a 2.5 to a 1.5. They were (from what I'm hearing) a big part of CC's corporate cost cutting move (because anytime you take a station billing in the teen-millions, and drop it into the low single digits, something has to make up for that loss)...

Now as a listener, the fact that they're losing money playing deep tracks might not be important. But for those of us whose jobs rely on those ratings, as I said, it's suicide.

Look at any radio research. Widen your playlist too far, start playing unfamiliar cuts, and your TSL goes down. In other words, people punch out when they hear stuff they're not used to. Tighten up your playlist and your TSL may not go up, but your cume increases as more people hear the songs they want to hear. It's radio 101.

But I forget that many of you haven't taken Radio 101, much less any advanced courses.

So go ahead, rant about how you want to hear deep tracks, just don't take offense when you relaize that most of us aren't laughing with you, we're laughing at you.
 
WHAT IS EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT????? Fairness Doctrine for formats. If any of you are serious, then you need to bow out of the business and check into a place of education. Not higher education, just any education.

The fairness doctrine is nothing more than equal time for opposing opinions spoken on talk radio or any radio I guess. It's government regulation of speech and that goes against the 1st amendment. The Washington a-holes behind it will tell you otherwise, but it is nothing more than having the government regulate speech under the cover of being responsible to a piece of paper (i.e. the station license).

The Washington a-holes passed the 1996 FCC Dereg Act under the cover that market conditions will regulate the medium, but we all know it was really the major broadcasters' lobbyists successfully creating the conditions favoring Wall Street and ruining the medium.

The fairness doctrine and 1996 Act are not related, but it needed to be pointed out. If stations program either liberal or conservative talk and get ratings and revenue, why force them to lose money by forcing opposing viewpoints with other shows that will certainly lose money because there's no interest?

It's a simple question, and PULEASE don't refer the the stations' responsibility to serving the community in the interest of their licenses because that's not what the 1996 Act created. It stated that market conditions, natually created, will dictate what airs and what doesn't.
 
OK, market conditions, naturally created, necessitate that only totally partisan viewpoints be aired?

What about people that still have an open mind, or are undecided? They need only to hear the fully polarized view of any topic?

The people who veered this topic off into "formats" are not fully engaged in the conversation.

The F.D. was devised to keep radio from becoming lapdogs of special interests, as newspapers had become.

Those who wish to promote singular views are doing marketing and promotional work for a particular ideology, not "radio".
Radio once upon a time was required to be civilized and sound like a mature, well balanced member of society.

Is it really better now that boorishness from either side of a divide is the preferred mode?

I'm sure it makes more money, if that's all we care about. If this satisfies you, so be it.
I expect better because we did once agree as a nation to have some ideals, and radio was better for it.
 
little1 said:
TheRover said:
What a "Fairness Doctrine" for MUsic Played on Radio.....

Equal Time for Deep Tracks IN ALL #$%##$ Formats ! ! ! ! !
Click to expand...

You just don't get that 'deep tracks' is programming suicide for any station attempting to stay as a profitable radio station.

If you don't believe me, take a look at KZPS. They went from their nice safe, boring classic rock station, drawing a 2.5 in the ratings, to "Lone Star", playing a lot of deep tracks, unfamilar music not widely known by the vast majority of their listeners.

And what happened. The went from a 2.5 to a 1.5. They were (from what I'm hearing) a big part of CC's corporate cost cutting move (because anytime you take a station billing in the teen-millions, and drop it into the low single digits, something has to make up for that loss)...

Now as a listener, the fact that they're losing money playing deep tracks might not be important. But for those of us whose jobs rely on those ratings, as I said, it's suicide.

Look at any radio research. Widen your playlist too far, start playing unfamiliar cuts, and your TSL goes down. In other words, people punch out when they hear stuff they're not used to. Tighten up your playlist and your TSL may not go up, but your cume increases as more people hear the songs they want to hear. It's radio 101.

But I forget that many of you haven't taken Radio 101, much less any advanced courses.

So go ahead, rant about how you want to hear deep tracks, just don't take offense when you relaize that most of us aren't laughing with you, we're laughing at you.
Click to expand...

when did the average listener become so closed minded that they only want to hear a thimblefull of songs and no more.I would think people would be tired of the same songs over and over.

it`s bizzare that members of a generation that rebeled against the closed playlists of top 40 radio in the late 60`s and early 70`s settled for limited playlists in later years.and it is a shame that younger listoners don`t want to hear what else is out there.

now back to a discussion on the fairness doctorine.already in progress.
 
Tom Wells said:
OK, market conditions, naturally created, necessitate that only totally partisan viewpoints be aired?

What about people that still have an open mind, or are undecided? They need only to hear the fully polarized view of any topic?

The F.D. was devised to keep radio from becoming lapdogs of special interests, as newspapers had become.
Click to expand...

AND TV News Networks . . . .

I'd say CBS is Hillary's LapDog, and others might be. Don't know about Obama...

With TV AND Newspapers overwhelming liberally biased..... isn't it a question of Balance that Talk Radio is overwhelmingly conservative ? ? ?

In the BIG Overall Picture of Things . . .

I would say that Conservative Messages in Programming on TV networks are intentionally kept at a minimum, and there's not enough middle ground, and then you have this incredible bias for the Liberal Message coming up in Programming.

Any way you slice that .... It S u c k s, and is not "Fair".

There's a Culture War going on.... why do some of you ONLY want to look at the Radio front ? ? ? ? But, I'm used to seeing these blinders used by libs.....
 
What makes you think the listeners are hearing the same songs over and over? Have you seen the average TSL for most stations in this market? It's NOT that high.

4 or 5 hours over the course of a week translates into 30 minutes twice a day. (Or about what it takes many people to drive home)...

It's not a matter of close minded, it's a matter that if your average listener doesn't listen for that long a period of time, do you play "deep tracks", which they'll probably tune out on, or do you play songs they recognize, trying to keep them around for as long as possible...
 
if you figure all the media sources (tv news, tv political shows ,radio news ,talk radio,newspapers ect.) everything probally evens out. if you don`t like what talk radio says you can read the paper that fits your view. and the same can be said the other way around.
 
little1 said:
What makes you think the listeners are hearing the same songs over and over? Have you seen the average TSL for most stations in this market? It's NOT that high.

4 or 5 hours over the course of a week translates into 30 minutes twice a day. (Or about what it takes many people to drive home)...

It's not a matter of close minded, it's a matter that if your average listener doesn't listen for that long a period of time, do you play "deep tracks", which they'll probably tune out on, or do you play songs they recognize, trying to keep them around for as long as possible...
Click to expand...

Great ! ! Let's DO have a radio station for "Drivers".....

And, let's have ANOTHER radio station, for Lovers of Music, which includes Deep Cuts...
 
little1 said:
What makes you think the listeners are hearing the same songs over and over? Have you seen the average TSL for most stations in this market? It's NOT that high.

4 or 5 hours over the course of a week translates into 30 minutes twice a day. (Or about what it takes many people to drive home)...

It's not a matter of close minded, it's a matter that if your average listener doesn't listen for that long a period of time, do you play "deep tracks", which they'll probably tune out on, or do you play songs they recognize, trying to keep them around for as long as possible...
Click to expand...

tuning out because it isn`t a favorite song and is new to them is closed minded.

changing a station because they don`t like a song , familiar or not is one thing.that is understandable.it is the resistance to discover new songs by an artist or in a genre that is so wrong.

where is the adventure in radio stations. fm started it`s rise with deep cuts played on its rock stations. then program directors made the playlists tight.something happened to the mass of listeners to make them change attitudes about it.

perhaps it is the pavlos dogs syndrome. listeners hear the same few songs on the radio over and over and they eventually think that is the normal way and was always that way.
 
I don't think it's a matter of being close minded, it's a matter of options. Let's say I like classic rock. My options on my drive home are the Bone, Lonestar, or the crapshoots of KLUV and KEOM...

So I'm driving hom elistening to Lonestar and they roll out some countryish stuff. I'm reaching for the 93.3 preset. If they're in commercials, or playing a song I don't like, odds are I'm switching to see what KEOM has, what KLUV is playing ,maybe even wander over to KVIl or KDMX to see if they're playing any of the 'rock' I like...

I don't think it's close minded, it's people simply expressing their choice on what they want to hear. And we've had stations in town that have tried to expand their playlists. And they've watched their ratings go down.

Maybe it is close minded of the listeners. The thing to remember is that those listeners are paying the bills. Drive enough of them off and you lose ratings. Lose ratings lose revenue.Lose revenue, lose jobs.

I like my job. I'm going to do what I can to keep it. If that means playing the safe well tested music and not a bunch of unfamiliar cuts, so be it.

Because if I don't do it, who's going to feed my kids? If I played what "I" wanted, there would be a very eclectic music mix that most people probably wouldn't want to put up with...
 
little1 said:
I don't think it's a matter of being close minded, it's a matter of options. Let's say I like classic rock. My options on my drive home are the Bone, Lonestar, or the crapshoots of KLUV and KEOM...

So I'm driving hom elistening to Lonestar and they roll out some countryish stuff. I'm reaching for the 93.3 preset. If they're in commercials, or playing a song I don't like, odds are I'm switching to see what KEOM has, what KLUV is playing ,maybe even wander over to KVIl or KDMX to see if they're playing any of the 'rock' I like...

I don't think it's close minded, it's people simply expressing their choice on what they want to hear. And we've had stations in town that have tried to expand their playlists. And they've watched their ratings go down.

Maybe it is close minded of the listeners. The thing to remember is that those listeners are paying the bills. Drive enough of them off and you lose ratings. Lose ratings lose revenue.Lose revenue, lose jobs.

I like my job. I'm going to do what I can to keep it. If that means playing the safe well tested music and not a bunch of unfamiliar cuts, so be it.

Because if I don't do it, who's going to feed my kids? If I played what "I" wanted, there would be a very eclectic music mix that most people probably wouldn't want to put up with...
Click to expand...

I can`t argue with what you said. in fact my points wern`t against radio programing itself so much. I am not in radio but understand some how it works .it just iritates and saddens me at times that having been around to listen to adventures fm stations ,espically wnap indianapolis in the late 60`s and 70`s, to have seen that go away for tighter playlists because the listeners quit being experimental in their radio listening.great radio is possible if given the chance by both the stations and the audiance.
 
little1 said:
I like my job. I'm going to do what I can to keep it. If that means playing the safe well tested music and not a bunch of unfamiliar cuts, so be it.

Because if I don't do it, who's going to feed my kids? If I played what "I" wanted, there would be a very eclectic music mix that most people probably wouldn't want to put up with...
Click to expand...

We all have very eclectic music that we like, but -- that most others wouldn't like....there'a a place for that kind music, and the people who obseess over it.... KNON.

But, I never equate that kind of music.... with the deeper cuts, that are just as worthy as the pavlov dog tracks.

Like I said.... There SHOULD be a Rock staion with an "AM" mentality...for the masses that look for that.

But.... there should ALSO be a Rock radio station with an "FM" mentality, for those that want that.

And there's the fringe, and we have KNON, for that.

For the sake fo the Culture and the Community.

Some will know what I'm referring to.

Those are not--- just words !!
 
The point I'm trying to make to you Rover is that while I understand why you want to hear deep tracks, it's generally programming suicide to play those deep tracks.

Let's take one of my favorite bands, Squeeze, as an example. If i have listeners are only listening for a short period of time, odds say I should play the songs the listeners are most familiar with, let's say Tempted and Black Coffee in Bed.

there are other songs that were minor hits for Squeeze over the years, (Up the Junction, Pulling Mussels, is that love, etc) the problem being that NONE of them have the noteriety or or as popular as Tempted.

If I play one of those deep tracks, odds are that a lot of my listeners might punch away. While if I play the 'hit', most of them like that song and are more likely to stick through it.

If you had those 2 pieces of information, (play deep track and lose audience vs play hit and keep audience) and your job depended on your choice, what choice would you make?

I understand while you're unhappy. But I'm assuming your a listener, not a radio employee, and I'm trying to explain why programmers do what they do.

The stations that have huge playlists AND huge ratings are few and far between. Yeah, there's a couple of stations in the country that survive on VERY eclectic playlists (WXRT, KFOG, etc)...The problem is that hundreds of stations every year learn a lesson- that the wider the playlist, the lower your TSL. That means the more different/unfamiliar songs you play, the less people listen when they do tune in.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom