Where is the Center

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

That was talk radio during the Fairness Doctrine era. I'm not advocating for or against the Fairness Doctrine, just describing the state of talk radio during that era.

Those who strongly advocated to get away from the Fairness Doctrine expressed a view that licensees should be trusted "to do the right thing" and not be all tangled up in bureaucracy and being held hostage by by gadflies who used the Fairness Doctrine to play legal games.

The state of Talk Radio today could be interpreted to say: Broadcast licensees CAN'T be trusted to do the right thing after all.

But in fairness to the broadcasting industry and folks, we have to say that LISTENERS can't be trusted to do the right thing either.

Any one who got a grade better that "C" in their courses on history and civics has to realize that Talk Radio has become something like an enzyme that has killed the good bacteria in your septic tank, and now the yard "squishes" and stinks as you walk across it.

Yes, I understand and support freedom. If you want to feast on the doctrines of The Right Wing, knock yourself out. But when a communication industry stands by in disbelief and watches one political doctrine suck the life out of discussion of all other political doctrines, how can we groom the next generation to see the full spectrum of political views and discourse?

We had reasonable amounts of civility in broadcasting BEFORE the Fairness Doctrine. When it comes to Talk Radio, taking away the Fairness Doctrine does not appear to have been healthy for civility.

 

[Small Market Guy]

I think radio hosts get in trouble when they take an advocacy position.

Because that's what audiences expect. How would you like to go see the next Batman movie and they start showing Bridges of Madison County Part 2?

Again, it's possible to take positions and still be FAIR to other opinions. But a host HAS to stand for something.

 

[TheBigA]

But a host HAS to stand for something.

When the host takes a position, that leaves the audience two options: Agree or disagree. That makes the HOST the center of the discussion, rather than the topic.

What I'm suggesting isn't easy. It's hard.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Yes, I understand and support freedom. If you want to feast on the doctrines of The Right Wing, knock yourself out. But when a communication industry stands by in disbelief and watches one political doctrine suck the life out of discussion of all other political doctrines, how can we groom the next generation to see the full spectrum of political views and discourse?

They get those other views in every other medium. AM talk radio isn't grooming the next generation of anything. People who listen to it are already set in their political views. This hand wringing about one side of the debate getting a tiny slice of the pie that is DOMINATED by the other side is ridiculous. The "right" has AM talk radio and one cable channel. That's it. The left has everything else. You can't have EVERYTHING. Be satisfied with 95%.

 

[Small Market Guy]

When the host takes a position, that leaves the audience two options: Agree or disagree. That makes the HOST the center of the discussion, rather than the topic.

What I'm suggesting isn't easy. It's hard.

If the host is fair to everyone, I don't see what the difference is.

 

[TheBigA]

If the host is fair to everyone, I don't see what the difference is.

If the host takes a position, it's hard to be fair to everyone. The audience knows where he stands, and that affects what they say and how they behave.

It's the difference between being a referee at a sporting event and being on one of the teams. It's hard for a player to be fair to everyone when we all know he isn't.

 

[Small Market Guy]

If the host takes a position, it's hard to be fair to everyone. The audience knows where he stands, and that affects what they say and how they behave.

It's the difference between being a referee at a sporting event and being on one of the teams. It's hard for a player to be fair to everyone when we all know he isn't.

I've personally tried both approaches.

People don't want to listen to a referee. Just look at any sport. They HATE the referee.

People WILL listen to a player that's fair to the other team. Maybe it's not easy for some egomaniac type hosts, but it comes quite naturally to me.

On air personalities are called personalities for a reason. No one wants to hear a dispassionate wishy washy flake.

 

[Avid Listener]

STOP the idiotic music-station comparisons. I realize that on the surface it may look like a great analogy, but if you understand what people are actually listening to in these formats and why, you'd realize the analogy is facile at best. People who don't like country music, don't like country music. Someone who doesn't agree with a talk host can still be entertained by them. It happens all the time.

Then you get straight what I have been saying. While it is true that some people who don't agree with a talk host might still be entertained by them, that's not a common occurrence. If you're going to make comparisons, keep them apples-to-apples. Whether or not someone agrees with a talk host is not the same as liking or disliking a particular type of music. If people who don't like country music don't like country music, it's equally true that people who don't like liberal (or conservative) talk shows don't like liberal (or conservative) talk shows. Your vague assertions are not reflected in reality.

Now, if by "It happens all the time" you mean that there is at least one, lone, single individual in the entire United States being entertained by listening to a talk host he disagrees with, I would agree with that. But if you mean that there are large enough hordes of such people to make a positive impact on station ratings, you're mistaken.

Why does the host have to hold any positions? Imagine a talk show where the host simply creates a welcoming atmosphere for ALL views, and instead of the host taking advocacy positions, he steps out of the way and lets the callers talk.

And the listeners would all listen while riding on their unicorns.

Though to be more serious, that's a format known simply as "talk", as opposed to "news/talk". I used to listen to more than a few hosts who fit that description back in the 90's, when that format was a big deal. But that was yesterday, and yesterday's gone.

 

[flybynight]

That was talk radio during the Fairness Doctrine era. I'm not advocating for or against the Fairness Doctrine, just describing the state of talk radio during that era.

That's a myth. Did you ever hear Bob Grant or Alan Berg, just to name a couple? Somehow the fairness doctrine didn't prevent passionate hosts from entertaining an audience.

The Fairness Doctrine DID, however, prevent major radio stations in big cities from becoming propaganda machines for a political party.

 

[Small Market Guy]

That's a myth. Did you ever hear Bob Grant or Alan Berg, just to name a couple? Somehow the fairness doctrine didn't prevent passionate hosts from entertaining an audience.

It would today, and you know it.

 

[TheBigA]

The "right" has AM talk radio and one cable channel. That's it. The left has everything else. You can't have EVERYTHING. Be satisfied with 95%.

That's not really true. The right has some dedicated media. They're 100% dedicated to one single point of view. And there are a couple sources that take the other side. But truthfully, the vast majority takes NO side at all. Listen to the music stations. Do they take political positions? No. They shut up and play the music. Most of the cable channels just run their various shows without taking political positions. Most of the newspapers do straight reporting. So I'd say 90% of the media has NO opinion. Certainly not to the degree you hear on talk radio.

 

[flybynight]

Why does the host have to hold any positions? Imagine a talk show where the host simply creates a welcoming atmosphere for ALL views, and instead of the host taking advocacy positions, he steps out of the way and lets the callers talk.

Passionate hosts who engage people in lively conversation makes for a great show, My only real criticism of today's talkradio has to do with how unnecessarily narrow-minded and dishonest it is. it confuses and misinforms many people. That's literally the OPPOSITE of operating in the "public interest".

 

[Small Market Guy]

The Fairness Doctrine DID, however, prevent major radio stations in big cities from becoming propaganda machines for a political party.

If that's what you think they are, they're doing a lousy job at it.

 

[TheBigA]

People don't want to listen to a referee. Just look at any sport. They HATE the referee.

Depends on how fair he is. If he's really fair, he's respected. If he makes a wrong call, they hate him.

As I said, it's not easy. The host has to come up with an act that goes beyond the obvious.

 

[Small Market Guy]

So I'd say 90% of the media has NO opinion.

I'm glad I wasn't eating or drinking when I read that. I'd be wiping a mess off my monitor right now.

Depends on how fair he is. If he's really fair, he's respected. If he makes a wrong call, they hate him.

As I said, it's not easy. The host has to come up with an act that goes beyond the obvious.

This much is true. But I know from my own experience that it can be done.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm glad I wasn't eating or drinking when I read that. I'd be wiping a mess off my monitor right now.

Sorry. You need to look beyond your own world and your own biases. But when a radio station plays music, it's not political. And 90% of the radio today NOT talk.

 

[flybynight]

It would today, and you know it.

How? The fairness doctrine is only about making sure the other side of the argument is heard. That has ZERO bearing on the way a host can defend their position. Now if this creates an environment where weak hosts cannot stand the heat of an opposing viewpoint, then they're not very good anyway.

It actually nauseates me the way these ideological hosts horde together like jr. high school girls in the lunchroom. Many are weak and can't handle being challenged.

 

[Small Market Guy]

But when a radio station plays music, it's not political.

You just broke Bob Dylan's heart. He thought the work he's done over the past 50 years meant something.

How? The fairness doctrine is only about making sure the other side of the argument is heard.

Because that's not what it would be this time around (and really wasn't the first time around, but you'll never believe that).

It would be reams and reams of paperwork meant to discourage ANY sort of discussion. The people who want to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine have only one goal. Ridding the airwaves of conservative talk. Why does no one want to enforce "fairness" on TV or in newspapers?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

They get those other views in every other medium. AM talk radio isn't grooming the next generation of anything. People who listen to it are already set in their political views. This hand wringing about one side of the debate getting a tiny slice of the pie that is DOMINATED by the other side is ridiculous. The "right" has AM talk radio and one cable channel. That's it. The left has everything else. You can't have EVERYTHING. Be satisfied with 95%.

Thank you. I might have written a page and a half trying to set the scene on the stage and you did it in what.... three lines?

You make the observation that everyone who is not "The Right" is by default... part of "The Left". I originated this thread as an exploration of "The Middle"... that part of our tribe that is not sold out Right-wing, and not sold out Left-wing. Your 5%/95% formula in essence says to people who want to hear and explanation of what is going on in this country with as much FACT-content as possible and as little ACID-content as possible, "You folks don't count. Since you refuse to ally with us on the right, we hereby declare you to be a part of the disgustingly left-leaning crowd.... ALL of you.

How do we fix that?

AM talk radio isn't grooming the next generation of anything. People who listen to it are already set in their political views.

[/QUOTE}

I was reading some other resources today talking about the average age of listeners to talk.... radio and tv and cable... and apparently the median age of the audience tends to be somewhere north of 71.

Why get excited about grandpa getting his jollies listening to Talk Radio? Because grandpa is now emboldened as he explains how the world works and how the world is put together to his grandchildren (and maybe his adult children!) after Sunday dinner with Grandma.

We live in a world where the communication of ideas is very, very complex. I guess it always has been. Remember, I am the guy who recently proclaimed that a college course about Folklore was the most useful and practical course on my transcript. Do a study sometime. Why does every culture in every era have something that qualifies as Folklore. And what were the primary purposes of the Folklore tales? "Teach the children how to identify WHO in this world is EVIL.

Talk Radio! The Folklore of the 21st Century.

 

[TheBigA]

You just broke Bob Dylan's heart. He thought the work he's done over the past 50 years meant something

Dylan doesn't get airplay anymore. He hasn't for a long time. And his last political song was Hurricane 40 years ago.