• 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

Will the Fairness Doctrine be Resurrected?

T

Towerjunky

[EDIT]The obvious reason would be to try to defang talk radio.

Talk radio is too big now. I don't think it will easily happen. Millions of listeners will protest and the broadcasters will have their say too. Can this happen?


[EDIT-off topic politics]
 
This will never happen, at least in the next congress. Even if a majority of Democrats supported it, the Republicans will still have the 41 votes they need to kill any bill in the Senate.

Towerjunky said:
[EDIT]The obvious reason would be to try to defang talk radio.

Talk radio is too big now. I don't think it will easily happen. Millions of listeners will protest and the broadcasters will have their say too. Can this happen?


[EDIT-off topic politics]
Click to expand...
 
The fact that this topic keeps popping up on board after board is indicative of just how thoroughly the staffs and management of local talk radio stations (that is to say, the staff left after numerous budget cuts) is made up of committed conservatives.
 
"This will never happen, at least in the next congress. Even if a majority of Democrats supported it, the Republicans will still have the 41 votes they need to kill any bill in the Senate."

I would be wary of taking your "41" scenario to the bank just now. The dogs are barking, the natives are very angry and restless, and the smart money is on a top-to-bottom blow-out of all things right-wing on Tuesday. See you on the 20th day of the new year.
 
I'm not talking about societal change. I'm talking about the reaction of its huge audience and of the station/group owners who make alot of money from it.
 
Towerjunky, I am now reposting this information for the umpteenth time just for you.

Here is my posting on the subject from August 14, 2007:

From the recent (now, not so recent) report by the Center for American Progress on talk radio disparity:

From a regulatory perspective, the
Fairness Doctrine was never formally
repealed. The FCC did announce in
1987 that it would no longer enforce
certain regulations under the umbrella
of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989
a circuit court upheld the FCC decision.

The Supreme Court, however, has
never overruled the cases that authorized
the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness
Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that
the FCC has the authority to enforce it
again—thus it technically would not be
considered repealed.


Moreover, the original Communications
Act of 1934 still authorizes the FCC
to require “reasonable access to or to
permit purchase of reasonable amounts
of time” by a legally qualified candidate
for federal elective office, and equal
opportunities must be afforded all other
candidates for that office.

These obligations
come from the same set of concerns
from which the Fairness Doctrine arose.
And Section 315 of the Communications
Act still requires commercial broadcasters
“to operate in the public interest and
to afford reasonable opportunity for the
discussion of confl icting views of issues
of public importance.”

Thus, the public obligations inherent in
the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence
and operative, at least on paper. More
important, the Fairness Doctrine was
never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure
the fair discussion of important issues.

The Fairness Doctrine was most effective
as part of a regulatory structure that
limited license terms to three years, subjected
broadcasters to license challenges
through comparative hearings, required
notice to the local community that licenses
were going to expire, and empowered
the local community through a process
of interviewing a variety of local leaders.
Added to this regulatory structure was
the cooperation of the broadcast industry
through the National Association of
Broadcasters Code of Conduct.

Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
will do little to address the gap
between conservative and progressive
talk unless the underlying elements of
the public trustee doctrine are enforced,
in particular, the requirements of local
accountability and the reasonable airing
of important matters. The key principle
here is not shutting down one perspective
or another—it is making sure that communities
are informed about a range of
local and national public affairs.

In testimony before Congressional Democrats, Jones Radio Networks' (now Dial Global) Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller emphasized that what is at issue is not the Fairness Doctrine, but fairness.

Stephanie does not want to silence the likes of Rush, Sean, Savage and O'Reilly. It would leave Stephanie with nothing to say during the first hour of her own show.

By the way, only Big Eddie and Steph were invited to testify.
 
- if Obama wins the Democrat majority will certainly try.
They keep threatening, and at some point you must take them at their word.
Even if Senator Obama is against it personally, I cannot see him vetoing a
bill laid on his desk by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. (of course, with the rough
ride McCain has had from conservative talkers over the years, he might be
inclined to sign it too :D)

- when they do the backlash will be immense. Even left-of-center talkers
like Ed Schultz are warning against the attempt. It will just confirm the
worst accusations of Conservatives that Liberals have declared war on
free speech, and it will do more to energize them than anything else the left
could possibly attempt.

- the attempt will result in massive amounts of litigation, and given the current
composition of the Supreme Court, I suspect that the Fairness Doctrine will
ultimately be struck down in the end (after several years and tens of millions
of dollars).

If I am wrong get ready for a thousand or more "Rush Pirates" out there.
 
The few times I've seen politicians call for the return of FD, it was as a direct response to a question posed by the interviewer, as in the case of the senator in New Mexico. Obviously the conservative radio station that interviewed him (KKOB in Albuquerque) was trying to put some straw in its straw man argument. If I were running KKOB, I'd be more worried about the health of my parent company (Citadel) than the return of FD.
 
I think talk radio to a point has been defanged.

Let's look at the #1 talker and the man so many said was responsible for the 1994 republican takeover.

Despite calls and predictions of the opposite, the Congress changed control in 2006.

Did everything in his power to destroy McCain and keep him from getting the republican nomination. We see how well that worked.

Did everything in his power to weaken Obama by his operation chaos. While some people did respond to the call to change parties in the various states with open primaries, Hillary didn't prevail and Obama wasn't weakened. In fact, it may have made him a more formidable candidate.

Did everything in his power to agitate the masses against the bailout. Sure, it failed the senate the first time. That just gave legislators a chance to add more pork before the bill was ultimately passed (gee thanks talkers) despite the #1 talker and the rest of the jawbone media agitating against it.

Do they really have any power anymore other than to preach to their various choirs who are already in alignment? And that really goes for the liberal talkers too.
 
If the Fairness Doctrine is used in any way against the Talkers, it will have been brought on by themselves by not even considering the dissenting views and reasonings of callers who even attempt to get through to them as, in essence, "useless idiots" who don't deserve to be heard and are quickly gotten rid of.
 
It would be nice to see the Fairness Doctrine more strictly enforced on conservative talk stations.

- Colmes could be brought on to Hannity's radio show AND given equal time for the first time ever.

- Michael Savage would be forced to hire an openly gay co-host.

- Dr. Laura would have to hire a co-host who stressed using yoga, meditation and alternative medicine, and who advocated single-parent families.

It could even extend to non-"newz" shows like Coast To Coast AM would now have a co-host who advocated the single gunman theory and that aliens don't exist.
 
Dr. Laura probably will not change. Her show has never been all political anyway.
 
PowerCow106 said:
It would be nice to see the Fairness Doctrine more strictly enforced on conservative talk stations.
[..]

- Michael Savage would be forced to hire an openly gay co-host.
Click to expand...

Karel? :)
 
Was talk radio 'fair' when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect? I don't remember. There wasn't as much to listen to then and what I heard wasn't very entertaining.
 
As I said before the election, even if the Dems wanted to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine the Republicans will still have enough votes in the Senate to block anything they don't want. All they need is 41 votes and they'll have more than that. Incidentally, the AP has uncalled the Minnesota senate race. The initial count has Franken only 571 votes behind Coleman, so there will be a recount.
.
 
Was talk radio 'fair' when the Fairness Doctrine was in effect? I don't remember. There wasn't as much to listen to then and what I heard wasn't very entertaining.
Click to expand...

A lot of small towns didn't get a talker till the late 80's, but that was mainly a function of cost. They were waiting for cheap satellite programming and sitting on fading music formats. Most AM stations didn't go directly to talk in the 80's. Instead, they flitted around from format to format, from Top 40 to AC to Country to Nostalgia, trying to find a way to get traction while avoiding the cost of talk radio formats.

In the cities that did have talk, there was a lot of variation. Some were sleepy -- but mainly because nobody really knew how to program talk radio. A lot of cities had really good talk. The Florida markets were really hopping at that time. To say that talk radio didn't exist before FD, or that it all stunk, is a talking point with little basis in fact.

Rush's rise coincided with "Hot Talk", a format in which people with varied opinions offered a lot of yelling and confrontation. He insists he was apart from all that, yet those are the stations he went to to get clearance when he needed "the big boys."
 
Denver, Dallas and Kansas City had great talk stations (KOA, KLIF, KCMO).
Now, only one of those is a real talk radio station, airing strong local programming while the last one is nearly totally syndicated.

Great hosts came out of the earlier age, such as Ken Hamblin "The Black Avenger", the legendary Alan Berg and the great conservative David Gold, the longtime KLIF legend. Kevin McCarthy, also of KLIF, was pretty even-handed and an engaging host much of the style of Mitch Albom.

No, talk radio, IMHO, was a lot better back then. Hosts were much more engaging. It wasn't always a "Liberals are always wrong" type of show.
 
brian65 said:
If the Fairness Doctrine is used in any way against the Talkers, it will have been brought on by themselves by not even considering the dissenting views and reasonings of callers who even attempt to get through to them as, in essence, "useless idiots" who don't deserve to be heard and are quickly gotten rid of.
Click to expand...

Does a "fairness doctrine" mean that I'll get my '50s Oldies station back?
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom