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

[justareporter]

Someone might want to tell Freddy his case would never get to the Supreme court. He is a trustee of the frequency. He may think he owns it but he is merely ALLOWED to use it. The FCC would have FEDERAL MARSHALLS at his door tossing him and his staff out....just in case he wonders if the FCC has any power.

That is media law and FCC R&R 101...which obviously Mr. Freddy didn't take at university.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

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.

It is possible the jury is still out on all this talk about which "talk" audiences want to hear talking.

We don't know that high school sports (or other sports we hear on local radio station) is programming for which there is demand by the audience. It is programming that sells easily. Ex-jocks and jock-wanna-bee's grow up to be rambunctious business operators and they love being known as sports boosters. And the advertising works, strenght of audience demand not withstanding.

Conservative Talk is big on the radio today. Is it because there is that much demand for Rush and Hannity and Boortz and others. We really don't know. BUT, ex-jocks and jock-wanna-bee's grow up to be rambunctious business operators and love being part of the conservative movement, whether there is audience demand or not.

Audience demand and availability of advertising revenue are not always one and the same.

 

[BiggusPrimus]

If I'm a PD adding FTL would make little sense. Since the libertarian viewpoint is in little demand.

It's refreshing to see someone publicly embrace the idea that unpopular viewpoints don't belong on the air.

Bravo, sir!

Your friend forever,
Biggus

 

[FTL_Ian]

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.

That's a shocking revelation... shows that actually have a significant budget and affiliate relations staff promoting them have managed to outperform little old me.

That said, we have 33 affiliates today and are growing. Plus, my show is profitable, so no one will be pulling the plug on me.

You keep denying reality, I'll keep adding affiliates. :

 

[smedge2006]

You keep denying reality, I'll keep adding affiliates.

... and at the rate you're going, you'll match Ed Schultz's current affiliate count in 23 years, Hannity in 70, and Rush in a couple of centuries...

 

[FTL_Ian]

You keep denying reality, I'll keep adding affiliates.

... and at the rate you're going, you'll match Ed Schultz's current affiliate count in 23 years, Hannity in 70, and Rush in a couple of centuries...

Considering I'm only 27, time is definitely on my side.

 

[mred]

In Las Vegas there is a morning "conservative host" that comes in 27th on a 50,000 watt AM station-720AM kdwn. While up against Limpbaugh, this local host isn't doing as good as O'reilly or Ed Schultz would do. The ownership (Beasley) is conservative and the notion that the "marketplace and competition" are in play is bogus. It is political. They would rather have a conservative loser, than a liberal winner.

You look at the political limus test Salem uses, it is not market driven, but ideology driven. Neal Boortz said he can get on Salem because he's not anti-abortion. So the idea behind this thread is silly.

 

[gr8oldies]

Geesh, if all the stations carrying conservative talk are party organs, and Rush, Hannity, et al are not there to get ratings but votes how come on all of the stations carrying conservative talk shows here in Ohio are running Barrack or Hillary commercials every break?

 

[TheFonz]

... 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.

Wow................fairness. I guess I would have to re-stock my 50s & 60s music library and put a real "oldies" station back on the air. Fair is fair.

 

[smedge2006]

Geesh, if all the stations carrying conservative talk are party organs, and Rush, Hannity, et al are not there to get ratings but votes how come on all of the stations carrying conservative talk shows here in Ohio are running Barrack or Hillary commercials every break?

Perhaps they were bought in combo with a couple of music FMs that actually deliver the Demos' demos. Or, perhaps both sides are trying to play the open primary "crossover" card.

 

[RadioFanBoy]

Given what's happened this week with some high-profile conservative talkers (Chris Core, Melanie Morgan) no longer employed, we won't have to worry about the Fairness Doctrine. Bad management will kill talk radio much quicker!

 

[FreddyE1977]

Someone might want to tell Freddy his case would never get to the Supreme court. He is a trustee of the frequency. He may think he owns it but he is merely ALLOWED to use it. The FCC would have FEDERAL MARSHALLS at his door tossing him and his staff out....just in case he wonders if the FCC has any power.

That is media law and FCC R&R 101...which obviously Mr. Freddy didn't take at university.

Excuse me....I was a history major, and as part of US History I did study Red Lion Broadcasting vs. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). I believe that in 1969, as today, holders of broadcast licenses did not OWN the frequency but were ALLOWED to use it. The Court in 1969 took this case because of the very significant First Amendment issues involved, and they ruled
unanimously (with one abstention) that the rule was constitutional. The Court has ruled on other issues involving the Fairness Doctrine and free speech many times in years since. Given the more open environment of mass communications today (and the Court's decidedly more conservative bent) I would suspect that they would be extremely eager to take up any future challenge on First Amendment grounds. (and I suspect there will be no shortage of plaintiffs for such a challenge on either the right or the left).

Then again, I spent my time in college studying, and not living out some Waco siege fantasy.

 

[justareporter]

Glad you studied.

So did most of us.

Broadcasters do not own the license ....they are allowed to use it. If that is what you were attempting to convey with your message then we agree.

And I am clueless as to your Waco reference...but good luck with it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Ahhhh... are you too young to remember David Koresch and the Branch Davidians all hunkered down just outside of Waco back in the 90's?

When the federal agents stormed the place it went up in flames with a lot of claims and counter-claims as to whether the Branch Davidians torched their own fort, and the invading agents were too heavy handed.

The implication was that the Davidians were "Last Days"/"End Times" focused and probably not doing a lot of intense academic studying.

Orrrr... mayabe you are part of MY crowd. Getting too old to remember back that far.

 

[justareporter]

Actually I understood the Waco reference...what I failed to get is the "last days of" link or attempt thereof.

The bottom line on this is that broadcasters do not own licenses...they get to use them. they have responsibilities which they have ignored for so long they are now irritated they might have to do their jobs.

Too bad.

The guardians at the Gate (FCC) failed to do their jobs for years. Now it looks like they might. Pity the poor broadcaster who might actually now have to live up the regulations.

Ha!