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

[BiggusPrimus]

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.

Thank you, and I mean that sincerely. I guess those years arguing the merits of Dark Elf combat abilities on the "World of Warcraft" discussion boards weren't a waste after all. For the Horde!

I'm snipping a bunch of your stuff here not because it's not good, but because I think this is at the core of the matter.

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.

I think we agree more than you assume, but it's a huge and potentially deadly mistake to open the door to even more government oversight of content. The traditional equal-time version of the "Fairness Doctrine" has been, and will be, used to stifle criticism of the government. Is there a better way to get more diversity of opinion on the air? Probably, but I'll be damned if I can figure out one that doesn't open the system to abuse and gamesmanship by politicians and their proxies.

Your friend forever,
Biggus

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I think we agree more than you assume, but it's a huge and potentially deadly mistake to open the door to even more government oversight of content.

I am amused at all the hysteria over the possibility of "The Fairness Doctrine". I did a daily talk radio bit for three years back in the 1960s.... when we had THE Fairness Doctrine.

It was not the government that came after your hide. The Fairness Doctrine gave standing to agrieved parties and community groups to come after your hide. My talk show never in three years created a fairness doctrine problem. The morning hours of our station were broadcasting religious programming and Madeline Murray O'Hair came after me over what one of those people put on my air.

I remember having to write a handful of letters to people who were seriously lambasted by some of my callers but I don't remember a single one of those people ever responding or providing a rebuttal.

The FCC never gave me any grief and we were pretty "in your face" for the era.

You guys remind me of Chicken Little: The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

In the original Fairness Doctrine there were no financial penalties imposed by the FCC. The penalty was that you had to go to the trouble of giving the opposite side, the responder, some time. You had to go to the trouble of documenting that you knew what the issues of the day were and documenting that you attempted to address them.

 

[semoochie]

I was under the impression that ignoring the fairness doctrine would get you fined. Ignore it repeatedly and your license would be revoked. What passed for quality talk radio in those days was few and far between and where it did exist, tended to attract older demos in droves! I don't think AM can do that again.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I was under the impression that ignoring the fairness doctrine would get you fined. Ignore it repeatedly and your license would be revoked.

My memory is imperfect in this area.... but my memory is that during that era there were no fines. There was no statutory authority at that time for fines. That would come later when as a nation we came to realize that the only punishment available to deal with :bad" broadcasters was "capaital punishment". Not death to any people, but death of the license. It was decided that some less draconian punishment was needed to get people's attention in the business.

My less than perfect memory is that license revokation was somewhat unheard of. Almost never used. (The only one I remember was Dr. Carl McIntyre and his broadcasting property at Red Lion, PA.) The threat was that at license renewal time a rival application would surface. Broadcasters were petrified with the idea that they could develop their property and some interloper could come along and make promises about running more PSAs or improved children's programming and jerk your license right out from under you. In that era the industry did not seem to feat that GOVERNMENT would take their license away, but that some do-gooder carpetbager would take their license away. (At the very least, run up a huge legal bill to keep your license. There were some activists who would remind broadcasters that legal bills awaited them if they didn't play ball.)

The "saving grace" of that era was that so many stations were 'family owned' and to file on top of someone existing license was such a gutsy, arrogant thing to do, it was assumed that the local advertisers would boycott a new operator who would stoop so low, thus I cannot personally remember a situation where someone sucessfully filed and "confiscated" someone's license.

Times have changed and if the Fairness Doctrine or some variation thereof were instituted/reinstituted, it no doubt would work differently today. Maybe some of the fears I hear expressed in this discussion group are justifiable. I think it was mostly the paperwork and the dreaded "public file" bureaucracy that chaffed broadcasters back then.

 

[bub]

As I've alluded on another thread on this board, a return to the Fairness Doctrine will not change the basic premise of radio: provide compelling content that will give the listener a reason to listen to your station.

In reference to another poster, let's say you air 3 hours of a conservative talk show followed by 3 hours of a liberal talk show. You've served the public interest, right? Wrong! All you've done was provide 6 hours of ENTERTAINMENT programming - no more, no less. A friend of mine told me many years ago (1990, if I recall) that if you want a good talk show and you want response to your show, find something to p!ss off your listeners - Fairness Doctrine or not. At that point, the listener has one of 2 choices:

1. Turn the radio dial to another station
2. Turn the radio off; provided your radio comes with an on/off switch.

Good or bad, right or wrong, it is what it is, with or without the Fairness Doctrine. Don't like the content you hear? Nobody's "holding a gun to your head" to continue listening. Time on your hands? Use that as the basis of a "petition to deny" to the FCC when the station's license comes up for renewal...but don't hold your breath. Good or bad, right or wrong, it's ENTERTAINMENT PROGRAMMING, with or without the Fairness Doctrine windowdressing. This type of programming is here to stay until someone comes up with something better. As long as a radio programmer is doing his or her job for his or her station, a return to the Fairness Doctrine is a waste of time.

 

[justareporter]

You're right when you say the job is to create compelling radio....but "pissing" someone off is not compelling....just easy.

YOU miss the central premise...that there is virtually no airing of competing viewpoints.

And even though we disagree on many issues Biggus is so far the most eloquent....

 

[retrothoughts]

Actually, there's damn little p***ing off the listeners right now, not compared to 20 years ago when you had hosts of different ideologies on the same station and they were sure to annoy somebody. Right now talk radio is more like a hothouse, or a cocoon where the opposing point of view is just a distant straw man. P***ing matches between the right and left, or the right and middle, or the left and middle, or the bombastic versus the stupid, may be easy -- but creating pileup radio (the kind you can't turn away from) hasn't happened in a long time. It would be one way to freshen talk radio's demos -- which haven't had a fresh infusion of listeners since about 1992, despite many of them moving to FM.

 

[justareporter]

I happily stand corrected.

 

[willcail]

Alex Jones would make more sense to add than Free Talk Live. Free Talk Live is extreme righty talking points with out the racist undertones like Micheal Savage. Rush turns talk radio into the audio equvilent of skid row.

Now this is what I would do if the Fairness Doctrene returns.

4-6(7?)AM Doug Stephan
6(7?)-9AM Local AM Drive Time One Left One Right
9AM-12PM Stephanie Miller
12PM-3PM Ed Schultz
3PM-4PM Bill-O
4PM-6PM Local PM Drive Time show One Left One Right
6PM-8PM Micheal Savage
8PM-10PM Alex Jones
10PM-12AM Jim Bohannon
12AM-4AM Cost to Cost.

Weekends will be Kim Komando, The Tech Guy, Best of Lionel, Best of Bob and Tom, Seder on Sunday, TRN weekends. Local Shows.

 

[jh]

My memory of the Fairness Doctrine may be a little fuzzy... but I don't think running a conservative show followed by a liberal show would cut it. Somebody who was attacked by the conservative show could still request time for rebuttal, whether you ran a liberal show or not. Although the requests would go to the local stations (in Rush's case all 600, or Paul Harvey, 1300) rather than the syndicator or network.

And Limbaugh doesn't speak for all conservatives like Schultz doesn't speak for all liberals... and what about moderates? This would open such a can of worms that fringe groups would spring up just to demand time on radio stations.

I like it would lead to a lot less political talk and a lot more gardening show, recipe shows, etc.

 

[FTL_Ian]

Alex Jones would make more sense to add than Free Talk Live. Free Talk Live is extreme righty talking points with out the racist undertones like Micheal Savage.

Free Talk Live is neither right nor left. We want to re-legalize guns AND drugs. :

 

[BiggusPrimus]

And Limbaugh doesn't speak for all conservatives like Schultz doesn't speak for all liberals... and what about moderates? This would open such a can of worms that fringe groups would spring up just to demand time on radio stations.

And we all know that not a single one of those fringe groups would be affiliated with political operations.

The fact that they share donors, board members, and staffers would just be one of those big happy coincidences so beloved by elected officials. Politicians, after all, have only our best interests at heart. Who could possibly think having more "diversity of opinion" and "healthy debate" is a bad thing, other than a few extremist wackos? The kind of nutballs that would impugn the motives of our outstanding public servants who sacrifice so much to serve society for the greater good!

The very idea that politicians would willingly create a legal foundation for constant challenges to criticism they don't like, driven by "independent" groups outside the bounds of FEC regulation, is the very worst sort of scurrilous fear-mongering.

Your friend forever,
Biggus

 

[robbbc]

As i have stated before I oppose the reintroduction of the FD. I do beleive in Ownership caps and feel that would be a passive way of maintaining a diverse marketplace of ideas.

That being said, another concern I have is that Advertising is a tax deductable expense for businesses. It is illegal for businesses to make unreported tax-deductible donations to political parties. This is what happens when one advertises on for-profit stations with political party bias. These stations become party organs and the businesses are able to flout the law. Businesses should not be able to deduct advertising expenses on radio programs that favor one political party or the other. Some newspapers specifically leave their editorial pages advertiser-free (the WSJ IIRC) showing this thinking is not entirely unexpected. Maybe Spitzer should just sue one of the advertisers for tax-evasion for advertising on Rush. Don't go after Rush, go after his slop bucket.

This helps the non-profits like NPR who are already under restrictions on content and subject to government oversight.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

As i have stated before I oppose the reintroduction of the FD. I do beleive in Ownership caps and feel that would be a passive way of maintaining a diverse marketplace of ideas.

That being said, another concern I have is that Advertising is a tax deductable expense for businesses. It is illegal for businesses to make unreported tax-deductible donations to political parties. This is what happens when one advertises on for-profit stations with political party bias. These stations become party organs and the businesses are able to flout the law. Businesses should not be able to deduct advertising expenses on radio programs that favor one political party or the other. Some newspapers specifically leave their editorial pages advertiser-free (the WSJ IIRC) showing this thinking is not entirely unexpected. Maybe Spitzer should just sue one of the advertisers for tax-evasion for advertising on Rush. Don't go after Rush, go after his slop bucket.

This helps the non-profits like NPR who are already under restrictions on content and subject to government oversight.

Bad idea, Robb.

You would also affect the businesses who advertise on progressive talk radio exclusively, like me. If you want to kill progressive talk being commercially viable, take away the tax incentive.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Topical Talk, issue oriented talk both local and satellite could work again as they did prior to Rush et all making one sided political talk the format dujour. Essentially today's political talk shows like Rush/Hannity/Rhodes/Press are "secular preachers" or "political preachers". Instead of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and trying to get the listener to make a decision to follow Christ so they'd be saved, these political preachers are trying to get folks to make a decision for whatever political view the host is proclaiming so that the listener would vote the "correct" way in the next election. They are preaching the Gospel of the Republicans or Democrats, or Conservatives, or Liberals. The only major difference between the "political preachers" and the religious preachers (besides the actual message) is that Rush/Hannity/Rhodes/Press don't ask for donations to keep them on the air. I believe the better political talk shows are those that have two equally voiced and talented people as co hosts from the opposite side of the isle so that the discussion isn't one sided and where there are checks and balances on the exagerations, because the other host will call you on any real whoppers you'd tell, where as the solo host can preach his "gospel" with no challenges. A decent example of this is WDEL's Rick and Brian Show weekdays 1pm-4pm. Hannity and Colms on Fox isn't as good, because it seems that Hannity hogs more of the time and Colms just doesn't have the push that Hannity does so Colms seems to generally be overshadowed, but on Rick and Brian's show both get a fairly equal part where both hosts can freely speak their mind and each get to make whatever shots they want at the other, etc as they debate their different points of view. Of course they also take phone calls from listeners and they seem to be pulling in listeners from both sides of the isle as well who also bring out various points. A far more entertaining show than the one sided my way or the highway type show that's become the generally accepted standard today.

 

[robbbc]

As i have stated before I oppose the reintroduction of the FD. I do beleive in Ownership caps and feel that would be a passive way of maintaining a diverse marketplace of ideas.

That being said, another concern I have is that Advertising is a tax deductable expense for businesses. It is illegal for businesses to make unreported tax-deductible donations to political parties. This is what happens when one advertises on for-profit stations with political party bias. These stations become party organs and the businesses are able to flout the law. Businesses should not be able to deduct advertising expenses on radio programs that favor one political party or the other. Some newspapers specifically leave their editorial pages advertiser-free (the WSJ IIRC) showing this thinking is not entirely unexpected. Maybe Spitzer should just sue one of the advertisers for tax-evasion for advertising on Rush. Don't go after Rush, go after his slop bucket.

This helps the non-profits like NPR who are already under restrictions on content and subject to government oversight.

Bad idea, Robb.

You would also affect the businesses who advertise on progressive talk radio exclusively, like me. If you want to kill progressive talk being commercially viable, take away the tax incentive.

I was just musing. Since I don't understand tax law well enough to say what the details are. If the republican party came out with a newsletter and radio show I'm sure there is no way to we would allow business to deduct advertising expenses in those organs. When I give money to a political party I can't deduct that expense. Seems that is precisely what happens when businesses advertise on conservative newspapers and radio. Of course it is a two-way street and progressive hosts would suffer too.

 

[BiggusPrimus]

If the republican party came out with a newsletter and radio show I'm sure there is no way to we would allow business to deduct advertising expenses in those organs.

Why not?

I know at least one company, a bumper-sticker and gee-gaw manufacturer, that does exactly that. They maintain one divison to sell merch to the left, another to sell it to the right, but they're owned by the same umbrella company. I was in awe of their genius the first time it was explained to me.

Your friend forever,
Biggus

 

[FreddyE1977]

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?

I agree. The odds that the Supreme Court in it's current incarnation will again approve of the
Fairness Doctrine are slimmer than slim.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

If you can convince the Supreme Court that you are indeed "The Owner" of the frequency you occupy, then your scenario may be true.

If, however, the Supreme Court buys into what was considered to be public policy for more than 60 years, they would say to you: "No, the Public owns the frequency and you are the tenant, the trustee, the steward and required to serve the public interest while exercising your fiduciary responsibilities."

Which ever way it goes, that will be one doozie of a court case.

 

[willcail]

If I'm a PD adding FTL would make little sense. Since the libertarian viewpoint is in little demand. Since most libertarians view that responsiblities are a bad thing. Like wearing seatbelts or owning liability insurance for cars, ect. There is more demand for progressive talk than FTL. Just look at Steph Miller and Ed Schultz over 100 affilates each. Heck Lionel of AAR have more stations than FTL. If you want you little show to survie team up with Genesis Radio Network, the same network who syndicated Alex Jones. Heck they will broadcast your show on Shortwave.