You wake up tomorrow, the fairness doctrine is real and you're a PD...

[DaleGriffin]

... what do you do? You have to use talent currently availble in syndication and on the local level.

Bonus points if you can leave out your personal politics or personal attacks.

 

[FTL_Ian]

As a PD, add Free Talk Live. :

If I am the owner, abolish/ignore/disobey the FCC and federal government. Who the hell are they anyway?

 

[Lando Griffin]

Flip to motly lifestyle talk for most of the day and put in a good local morning news show with plenty of interviews from people of both sides of an issue.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Before Rush Limbaugh changed the face of talk radio, the format was ruled by the likes of Larry King, Jim Bohannon, Bruce Williams and Michael Jackson. The key is airing those hosts who are willing to chat with guests from both ends of the political spectrum.

I can only speak on the hosts from the left.

You already admitted to me you listen to Ed Schultz--former conservative, former sports broadcaster. Loves to talk sports as much as, if not more than, politics. His regular guests include the father of modern conservatism, Richard Viguerie. He gets the scoop regularly from CNN's Ed Henry, John King and, yes, A.J. Hammer. And Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball" has become a new regular. He doesn't screen calls. He has spoken to Presidential candidates from both parties.

I also promised you an autographed photo of Stephanie Miller--stand-up comic, former late-night TV host, never hesitant to make fun of anyone from either party if it makes for good comedy. Enhanced with voice guy Jim Ward's cast of characters ranging from Kim Jung-Il to Squeezy McFeelpants.

Only one Air America host would be adaptable: Lionel. Just read his bio. Had successful morning show on WABC, was previously syndicated by WOR. Considered too libertarian by devout Air America listeners. He can wear down even the most disagreeable caller with his expansive vocabulary.

As for talkers from the right...If you discover one who interviewed Dennis Kucinich on his/her show, and the conversation was civil, you've hit paydirt.

 

[dustintv]

Pray that Rush and Ed combine their two shows for the twelve to three spot and be radio's version of Hannity and Colmes or something.

The Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz Show: Best Friends, Worst Enemies!

 

[WTUX]

Our local Rush/Hannity affiliate already has that situation in hand with a Democrat on in the mid morning and Jim Bo at night.

WABC could alter the John Gambling show more to center-left.

The fairness doctrine, which the Dems will promote if elected, is do-able.

 

[mr_arbitron]

Do what Howard Stern did.. Go to satellite.. Prices will crash to almost free.

 

[BiggusPrimus]

The first thing I'd do is ignore it.  Then I'd start monitoring all the national news channels, since it's obvious that a coup d’état is underway.

Our representatives in Congress have explicitly de-funded any efforts to re-impose the "fairness doctrine" by the FCC.  If the agency goes ahead with it, in defiance of both the Congress and the President, I suspect everyone hoping for a change in the FCC lineup would get their wish pretty damn quick.  

Your friend forever,
Biggus

 

[jimwalsh2001]

With or without the Fairness Doctrine, I would strive for an entertaining, compelling mix of opinions.

The job is not to advance an agenda; the job is to get listeners and sell advertising.

 

[justareporter]

In my case...do nothing. I would have already produced a daily lineup made of talented local and satellite programs that offered listeners a variety of views throughout the day.

 

[BiggusPrimus]

With or without the Fairness Doctrine, I would strive for an entertaining, compelling mix of opinions.

The job is not to advance an agenda; the job is to get listeners and sell advertising.

The problem is that the "Fairness Doctrine" isn't about providing a mix of opinions. It's about government control of speech.

This isn't aimed at you in particular, but I think it's important that we as broadcasters avoid even a hint of acceptance for the Doctrine. It's not about having an agenda, or being on the right or the left, or even having a particular ideology- it's about giving the government a tool that it can, and will, use to suppress criticism. Yes, I know this whole thread was probably intended as a light-hearted thought experiment, but we've already gone through this particular experiment once and the results were, predictably, abysmal.

Your friend forever,
Biggus

 

[radiotower40]

With or without the Fairness Doctrine, I would strive for an entertaining, compelling mix of opinions.

The job is not to advance an agenda; the job is to get listeners and sell advertising.

The problem is that the "Fairness Doctrine" isn't about providing a mix of opinions. It's about government control of speech.

This isn't aimed at you in particular, but I think it's important that we as broadcasters avoid even a hint of acceptance for the Doctrine. It's not about having an agenda, or being on the right or the left, or even having a particular ideology- it's about giving the government a tool that it can, and will, use to suppress criticism. Yes, I know this whole thread was probably intended as a light-hearted thought experiment, but we've already gone through this particular experiment once and the results were, predictably, abysmal.

Your friend forever,
Biggus

Well said Biggus!!!!

 

[SeanMGilbow]

With or without the Fairness Doctrine, I would strive for an entertaining, compelling mix of opinions.

The job is not to advance an agenda; the job is to get listeners and sell advertising.

The problem is that the "Fairness Doctrine" isn't about providing a mix of opinions. It's about government control of speech.

This isn't aimed at you in particular, but I think it's important that we as broadcasters avoid even a hint of acceptance for the Doctrine. It's not about having an agenda, or being on the right or the left, or even having a particular ideology- it's about giving the government a tool that it can, and will, use to suppress criticism. Yes, I know this whole thread was probably intended as a light-hearted thought experiment, but we've already gone through this particular experiment once and the results were, predictably, abysmal.

Your friend forever,
Biggus

Time to educate the newbie.

Biggus, I have had to post in several locations that talk of resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine has been nothing but a smokescreen. The most successful hosts in liberal talk, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller (syndicated by Jones Radio Networks) testified to Congress last year they do not want to see a return of the Fairness Doctrine. As one of their advertisers, I'm in agreement.

If I need to once again cut and paste the relevant comments from The Center for American Progress on the subject, I will.

 

[BiggusPrimus]

Time to educate the newbie.

Biggus, I have had to post in several locations that talk of resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine has been nothing but a smokescreen. The most successful hosts in liberal talk, Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller (syndicated by Jones Radio Networks) testified to Congress last year they do not want to see a return of the Fairness Doctrine. As one of their advertisers, I'm in agreement.

If I need to once again cut and paste the relevant comments from The Center for American Progress on the subject, I will.

Believe me, I'm glad to hear we're all on the same page.

It's just that...you know...not everyone seems to be in agreement with us. I know, I know...hard to believe, isn't it? And you know what's really strange? An awful lot of the folks that don't share our views on free speech just happen to be elected officials in the Federal government.

Whooda thunk, eh?

A few minutes with Google will demonstrate that far too many politicians think the "Fairness Doctrine" is a great idea. Again, I don't think this is an issue where the left and right disagree- both sides, rightly, should fear government interference with free speech. And to say it's just "a smokescreen" when multiple members of Congress are openly in favor of it is, at best, disingenuous.

Your friend forever,
Biggus

 

[smedge2006]

John Mainelli, one of the most respected program directors in talk radio history, seems to think that the Fairness Doctrine would force talk hosts to be creative and winnow down the number of "Johnny one-notes" out there in talkradioland.

I can attest that there have been plenty of clones who have simply glommed onto the conservative wave in talk radio post-1992 and simply repeat talking points. Plenty of wannabes, plenty of fifth-tier syndication out there. Talk radio used to be a cacophony. Now it's a chorus, with an occasional off-key note.

Biggus, am I to understand that all people in radio are required to stand foursquare against the FD, even if they think it might make radio more listenable and a stronger business?? The industry is required to commit suicide to defend a version of the First Amendment based on the Golden Rule? (He who has the gold, makes the rules...)

I didn't see much done by conservative radio hosts to defend the likes of Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge from the FCC's indecency crusade. If the government can issue million-dollar fines for the F-word, it can have an FD. The precedent is already set. Likewise, I see little point in demanding that liberals in talk radio stand shoulder to shoulder against FD with the guys on the 50,000-watt blowtorches who have been proclaiming their shows dead, proclaiming that nobody listens, trying to strangle their medium in the crib and take away their livelihoods. Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller have done more for right-wing talk radio than it deserves. Likewise, John McCain's anti-FD stance verges on martyrdom. What have you done for them lately, Rush?

 

[BiggusPrimus]

John Mainelli, one of the most respected program directors in talk radio history, seems to think that the Fairness Doctrine would force talk hosts to be creative and winnow down the number of "Johnny one-notes" out there in talkradioland.

Ah, an appeal to authority!  Woot!

Okay, I'll bite.  Fred Friendly, who is LIKE UNTO A GOD AMONGST BROADCASTERS, and was played by the dreamily handsome George Clooney in "Good Night, and Good Luck", a film that was nominated for 6 Academy Awards, was opposed to the "Fairness Doctrine" because he felt it stifled free speech and open discourse. 

I'm sure John Mainelli is a great guy and all, don't get me wrong, but I'm willing to bet Fred Friendly's opinions on governmental suppression of free speech carry a bit more weight.  What with him, you know, doing that whole McCarthy thing. 

I can attest that there have been plenty of clones who have simply glommed onto the conservative wave in talk radio post-1992 and simply repeat talking points. Plenty of wannabes, plenty of fifth-tier syndication out there. Talk radio used to be a cacophony. Now it's a chorus, with an occasional off-key note.

Yes, radio sucks, but bad programming can't be legislated out of existence.  Call me crazy, but I don't think the might of the federal government should be used to keep every radio hack in the country from doing the "cold cuts" bit.  I wouldn't mind seeing the 10th Mountain Division wipe out the "Monday Morning Bagel Break", however.

Biggus, am I to understand that all people in radio are required to stand foursquare against the FD, even if they think it might make radio more listenable and a stronger business??

Am I to understand that you support implanting a remotely controlled explosive device controlled by the government inside the mastoid complex of every talk radio host?

Ha!  Just kidding. 

If you think the FD will magically produce quality programming and a stronger balance sheet then please feel free to impose it on yourself.  Heck, you'd be foolish not to.   See?  That's how freedom works- you get to follow the FD, I get to ignore it.  We both get to keep our little utopian visions intact and everybody wins! 

The industry is required to commit suicide to defend a version of the First Amendment based on the Golden Rule? (He who has the gold, makes the rules...)

The industry seems quite capable of committing suicide without any further intervention, thanks.   And do you really think laws controlling the discussion of politics should be decided by politicians?

I didn't see much done by conservative radio hosts to defend the likes of Howard Stern and Bubba the Love Sponge from the FCC's indecency crusade. If the government can issue million-dollar fines for the F-word, it can have an FD.   The precedent is already set.

Let me get this straight.  Rush didn't come to the defense of Stern, so the government should impose speech codes on broadcasters?

Likewise, I see little point in demanding that liberals in talk radio stand shoulder to shoulder against FD with the guys on the 50,000-watt blowtorches who have been proclaiming their shows dead, proclaiming that nobody listens, trying to strangle their medium in the crib and take away their livelihoods.

You're right.  What was a thinking?  Far better that we give the targets of those liberal talk hosts the power to fine them and strip their broadcast licenses.

Wait.  What?

Your friend forever,
Biggus

 

[WTUX]

A couple of notes.

First, Hannity defended Stern on his show and even talked with Stern live on the Hannity show. Defended him completely. So at least one conservative talker came to the plate to defend the right of Stern to do his thing.

The FD would not be needed if liberal hosts could be as entertaining and bring in the same ad $$ as Rush and Hannity. And freedom of speech on the government granted airwaves is not the same as freedom of speech on the street corner or freedom of the press. When you buy a radio frequency, the government is giving you an opportunity to make money. If the entertainment you present on the air has a political bias, you must play fair. It is not the same as playing music. You can be all hip-hop, all country, all rock, etc., if you want. No problem. But when you air entertainment programs designed to sway voters, the government has an obligation to ensure you do not abuse that power.

I say air the liberal hosts, but treat them the same as many tv outlets treated Rush during the 90's. They aired his show, but at slots like 1:30 in the morning so no one would watch. Put the liberal hosts on after midnight.

Another solution is that taken by WDEL. They go up against Hannity's airing on their talk cometitor by teaming a liberal and conservative together, much like the Hannity and Colmes show on Fox TV. That way you can be "Fair and Balanced".

 

[justareporter]

Biggus

If there is a board award for the most clever and engaging writing I would nominate you. We'll agree that we will disagree but yours is well written.

Where we will disagree: regulating speech by turning over the classificationof "liberal" vs. "conservative" of smae to mostly pin headed politicians is a lousy idea. Most of these fellas can't figure out where the part they sit on is.

Here is the problem: what we now have is conservative radio. With teh notable exception of a few hosts getting decent ratings on a few stations the vast majority of all non-music radio programming is significantly slated towards one political view...a view that is **at best** subscribed to by less than 50% of the population...and probably more like 25%.

But drive the country and try to find someone who isn't a Rush or Sean clone. We no longer "broadcast" we "narrowcast." What now goes over the airwaves from 6a to at least 8p would be best described as a ONE NOTE SAMBA.

As broadcasters we have an obligation to air competing voices. Otherwise our radio stations have been reduced to right-wing propaganda machines.

We really don't need a FD....if programmers would just do their job...but they seem incapable of understanding that their license to "serve the public interest, convenience and ncesssity" means airing more than just one view....even if that one view is ARTICULATED by multiple individuals.

And I don't think the argument that "listeners will turn away if they hear something they don't like" has much to any value. Okay...I should amend that to say "if you provide something other than just a talk show host."

People need a reason to listen. If they know there will be news, sports, local weather and traffic mixed in with the guy they HATE....chances are if you are doing a good job with the others they'll listen anyway. I listen to one station that airs Rush in the afternoon. I think Rush is a fraud, fake and phoney. But they have a great news department and good traffic reports. I listen, laugh and wait.

Some of us take the politics way too seriously. It is radio....not rocket science. Produce interesting, entertaining and informative broadcasting with a wide variety of views and opinions and you'll have an audience.

 

[BiggusPrimus]

The FD would not be needed if liberal hosts could be as entertaining and bring in the same ad $$ as Rush and Hannity.

Please don't take this personally, but I think this is one of the most dangerous memes broadcasters have been exposed to.

The basic issue of the "Fairness Doctrine" isn't about right versus left or Republican versus Democrat. It's about the right of broadcasters to criticize the government as representives of the citizenry as a whole. That's all. When you give the government the power to strike back at criticism via fines and license seizure that power will most assuredly be abused.

And it doesn't matter if the politician doing it has an "R" or a "D" after their name. They are, for our purposes, exactly the same.

If the entertainment you present on the air has a political bias, you must play fair.

The problem being, of course, that the very people you're criticizing are the ones that get to decide if you're being "fair", and they've already demonstrated that they have no qualms about using that power to silence criticism.

Your friend forever,
Biggus

 

[gr8oldies]

Well , between Barrack, Hillary and McCain..any of these 3 would sign off on a fairness doctrine. It's all going to depend on the makeup of congress. This idea that station programmers have an obligation to remove successful shows and put shows on the air that will kill the ratings, is ridiculous. So if you have the Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage lineup and it's working, you must blow this lineup up and trash your ratings. You can do that at your station.

Personally, if I had any kind of pockets at all, I'd keep my lineup in place, dare all the liberal groups to take me to court, and fight them all the way to the Supremes.