Your localism requirements?

[The Ultimate Warrior]

From another thread -

OK. I would ask why, in Dayton, Ohio, Mike Scinto on WAVI isn't beating the pants off Rush. If local is all-important, you would think that would be happening. No one really cares about whose butt is in a chair in what city (and trust me, it doesn't get more boring than talking about Dayton politics...which even the suburbanites couldn't care less about).. You really think a 1000 watt station in Lafayette, IN could afford to hire enough people to cover 12 hours, 7 days a week? OK, they could sign off at the minimum schedule of 10pm and make it 8. Would you the nrequire over the air TV to air 50% local programs? Bowling for Dollars? Hosted children's cartoon shows? Local theatre groups? Suppose no one watches?

You still have to provide a legal definition of "local content". If the hard drive is in the COL is that OK? If live spoken words must be utterred how many minutes per hour and what is the DJ required to say?

There are those who seem to believe that radio can and must exist somewhere where the laws of economics don't apply. I don't know where that is.

So everything off the satellite, with little or nothing local, including no news, that's fine with you?

Broadcasters who think their role is to be a repeater or translator of national programming should just surrender their licenses to people that really believer in broadcasting, not to those who think paying someone to talk on the air is a drag on their profits.

Can someone please lay out what the requirements should be before people need to give up their licenses?

I would like real requirements you would like to see.

For music and talk stations.

 

[gr8oldies]

To answer the poster on the other thread, yes, if some stations in a market cannot be economically viable other than by relaying programming off a satellite, so be it. Yes, there are people who want to hear Mike and Mike in the morning and national sports talk all day, rather that Ed and Homer from the local bar discussing the community college baseball team all day. It's a choice that is still there, as opposed to the choice being eliminated.

I look forward to replies to this thread, and wonder if anyone is willing to concede that this is no longer 1966, 1972 or 1980, and high minded attempts to "educate and inform the masses" may well result in those same masses plugging in a CD.

Is there really any motivation besides "Uncle Sam, make that big bad radio company let me talk on the radio?" I wonder if people would actually listen to the programming they propose.

Finally, who pays for all this regulation? We have to have FCC agents knocking on studio doors at 3am to verify someone is there? Doing inspections to make sure someone is delivering that weather forecast into a live mike in real time? Maybe even making sure thatg the "live local programming" isn't 49% that day?.

Wouldn't you love to own a station in that world? You'd spend 12 hours a day answering to your "advisory board" and filling out paperwork. Trying to make a living? Couldn't have that!

 

[ctkatz]

here's how i would define "localism": for talk radio stations, at least 3 hours (not including nescasts) out of 24 from monday-friday and 3 hours out of 48 from saturday-sunday should come from the broadcast studios of the radio station or content provided from regional sources. and i would have few requirements on when or how those 3 hours needed to be aired. live content can be aired at any time and must run 1 hour continuous and the host must have a continuous 30 minutes. this means during one hour 2 different shows may run during an hour. non-live content must run any time from 9 am to 5 pm monday-friday and any time from 12 pm to 9 pm saturday or sunday and must run in 1 hour continuous blocks. if i see that from any talk station, i could truely call that localism.

for the music stations, it's a very tough situation. some places don't have a tradition in developing local music. if there is enough talent in the area, i would say that the music station must play 3 local artists every 3 hours. they don't even have to be the same 3 artists. different songs, different bands. at the most, 8 tracks per band every day. if a group has a particularly deep library, it should work out pretty well.

 

[kinetic]

Just rambling off the top of my head...

How would you address market sizes? Are smaller markets easier to staff for FM but not AM, or vice versa? Was it Terre Haute that had no local talk host? What about AMs in markets 20-50? If they're not supplying local, should that change? Can't imagine no local talk show hosts in Cincinnati or Denver but if that were the case, how would rules apply? What about full service news talkers? Does the news block count as local programming?

 

[ctkatz]

easy way to address that issue- i would not make localism a requirement for every station if it cannot support it nor force it on stations either. so if some station manager thought that running shows off birds every day and running paid programming on the weekends works, that's fine. but as a consequence, that manager cannot also claim to be local anything. that way if a manager in any sized market could wrangle up all of the local talent in the smallest of markets to fill my requirements for one station, it would still be possible. should a second station want to go local they would have to scout around for said talent. perhaps the possible competition makes both better.

for the all-news stations, as long as there is someone in the studios of the station reading the news, that would qualify. eventually local news stories are going to make their way in the newscast.

not being local anymore will turn off a lot of people. so i see this fight as being the ideology of serving the local community versus the ideology of making money. if someone wanted my opinion, i would serve the community. the people listening are your biggest customers, not the businesses that are buying the ad space during the broadcasts. they can survive without advertising (example- east coast burger chain five guys. none of the profit they make goes into advertising. they just recently moved to driving distance here last december. i only found out about them reading the weekend features section of the paper where they did a 4 line capsulated review of the place. they're doing pretty well without any advertising at all). your station cannot survive without people listening to it.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

This is why there is such resistance to enforced localism. Who can define it? Do you want to deal with a bureaucrat who has been charged with enforcing it in her/his district or area? Will your bureaucrat enforce it the same way the one does three states away? Can you read the resulting FCC notifications of actions and see a pattern? And if you appeal, NOW who defines localism... a higher level bureaucrat or a Federal Judge somewhere? Do you look forward to standing before a Federal Judge who is behind on workload and looks at this dispute over localism and becomes angry that this is a waste of the courts time and disposes of the case without much empathy for any of the parties involved.

I want to suggest that appropriate localism in Clay Center, KS would be considerably different than it would be in Bar Harbor, ME and something else yet in Decatur, GA.

The institution of the "Public File" as required by the FCC probably was intended to deal with this. The licensee would place in the file some kind of study and survey documents giving proof that study had been given to the issue, and the licensee had prepared a "mission statement" showing what authentic localism (public service) would be for that particular community. Then the licensee would place in the file on a regular basis (quarterly?) narratives documenting that broadcasts were actually produced that carried out this mission statement.

From what I read, the "Public File" has become a dry, lifeless, methodical checklist of FCC required forms and documents that everyone agrees are a waste of time.

If I tried to make my Public File anything like I described above with a Mission Statement, we are back to the beginning. Will my FCC inspector agree with my efforts, or flunk me for being so misguided?

I read a lot of posts which indicate having a live human being sit in the local studio and say something while actually being present on the geography of the station constitutes localism. Horsefeathers! If your community is faced with a disaster in the operation of the land fill because of the exotic industries in your community, then getting an announcer seven states away to sit down in the office of a PhD. professor and researcher on the subject and ask questions about the distant landfill and ask the professor to outline the possible solutions the distant community should take (community LOCAL to the station) presents "localism" on your station even though it was (1) recorded (2) produced seven states away.

Having the president of the Sierra Club in your community give a 30 minute lecture on ecology broadcast at 6:00 A.M. Sunday morning fills a slot in your Public File, but just between us girls.... that may be pretty weak and useless "localism".

 

[smedge2006]

read a lot of posts which indicate having a live human being sit in the local studio and say something while actually being present on the geography of the station constitutes localism. Horsefeathers! If your community is faced with a disaster in the operation of the land fill because of the exotic industries in your community, then getting an announcer seven states away to sit down in the office of a PhD. professor and researcher on the subject and ask questions about the distant landfill and ask the professor to outline the possible solutions the distant community should take (community LOCAL to the station) presents "localism" on your station even though it was (1) recorded (2) produced seven states away.

Pig whinnies! The announcer seven states away wouldn't KNOW about the landfill because he wouldn't interact with locals on a regular basis to tell him about it. He might have read about it on the local newspaper's website -- but the paper just fired some reporters and doesn't have the staff to break stories the way it used to. You'd be lucky if the announcer knew how to pronounce the name of the TOWN in which the landfill was located.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Pig whinnies! The announcer seven states away wouldn't KNOW about the landfill because he wouldn't interact with locals on a regular basis to tell him about it.

Let me restate the scenario I was using. I own the station in the town where the landfill has complex problems. Local politicians, local activists and local listeners are all having dysfunctional conversation about what can be done, what should be done what must be done.

As an old fashioned altruistic public service oriented broadcaster I find out about the professor/researcher. I contact a station in the city 7 states away and ask if they would put me together with their best interviewer/journalist. I hire him to go interview the professor. It don't matter what street the land fill is on. It don't matter what the names of the little towns are that send their refuse there. It matters that we provide the announcer/interviewer with facts about the TYPE of refuse (mixture of refuse?) that we receive from our local factories, how long the landfill has been in use, how deep the refuse is stacked, is it covered with dirt and/or airtight fabrics, and does it have a venting system. The purpose of this broadcast is to introduce our listeners to what the scientist knows to be the dangers of such a land fill, what the scientist knows about the cost of remediating such a landfill, and the time and expense that will be required.

Even though that program was PRERECORDED rather than live, even though the program was recorded in an office or studio seven states away, and even though neither participant was local to my community, I would list that program as LOCAL CONTENT on any FCC form and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if challenged.

It is about my community. It is about my land fill. It is about problems and solutions in my community. It was contracted to be produced in such a way as to speak to MY local situation, not the situation in any other community.

Let your pig whinny all it wants to. And I checked. The pig is not local. None of our pigs whinny. Two have been located that cackle and one barks. :

 

[The Beave]

Can someone please lay out what the requirements should be before people need to give up their licenses?

I would like real requirements you would like to see.

For music and talk stations.

They are listed in The CFR - Part 73

The only I would like to see is thea stations must have atleast 4 hours of local programming per day. (commercials not included) Hell they could even be canned.

 

[KFodor]

here's how i would define "localism": for talk radio stations, at least 3 hours (not including nescasts) out of 24 from monday-friday and 3 hours out of 48 from saturday-sunday should come from the broadcast studios of the radio station or content provided from regional sources. and i would have few requirements on when or how those 3 hours needed to be aired. live content can be aired at any time and must run 1 hour continuous and the host must have a continuous 30 minutes. this means during one hour 2 different shows may run during an hour. non-live content must run any time from 9 am to 5 pm monday-friday and any time from 12 pm to 9 pm saturday or sunday and must run in 1 hour continuous blocks. if i see that from any talk station, i could truely call that localism.

for the music stations, it's a very tough situation. some places don't have a tradition in developing local music. if there is enough talent in the area, i would say that the music station must play 3 local artists every 3 hours. they don't even have to be the same 3 artists. different songs, different bands. at the most, 8 tracks per band every day. if a group has a particularly deep library, it should work out pretty well.

OK, I work for a conservative talk station. Let's break down our programming:

Morning Drive: from 5 am to 8:30 am, we air a locally produced, locally hosted all news morning show.

8:30 am to 12N: We air Neal Boortz. His views are largely conservative, but, being politically a libertarian, he is quite liberal on some subjects.

12 N - 3 pm: We air Rush Limbaugh. 3 pm - 6 pm, it's Sean Hannity.

6 pm to 9 pm: We air a financial advice from Clark Howard.

9 pm to 12 Midnight: Michael Savage

Overnights: Coast to Coast AM - sometimes political, sometimes not, and sometimes way, way out there.

This programming, from my perspective is balanced. Yes, we air about 9 hours a day of hard-core, no compromise conservative talk...but Boortz can go either way on a topic, Clark Howard and Coast To Coast AM are mostly non-political. Our morning news block (as well as our news throughout the day) is very careful to play things "down the middle". For example, we aired both Barack Obama and John McCain's campaign speeches live, without commentary, when either candidate came to speak in our area.

We also produce over 3 hours of local public affairs programming that runs the gamut, politically speaking.

We also offer "specialty talk" (all non-political) on the weekends. Everything from tips on auto repair, to investment programs to health, even gardening. Most of these programs are local with local call in opportunities.

We have, in the past, tried so-called "local talk". The ratings have never been as good as the lineup we have presently.

It's my opinion that, given the fact that we have a fully-staffed local news operation, produce the large amount of local public affairs programming that we do, offer local charitable organizations PSA opportunities, and...prepare at any moment to completely scrap the syndicated programming and go live and local if a circumstance warrants. (such as it did this past September when the winds of Hurricane Ike blew in and knocked over 500-thousand homes out of power for as long as 13 days), I respectfully submit we are properly serving the "public interest, convenience and necessity".

That's what the FCC says we're on the air to do. Not some politician's idea of "balance".

Local music? I'm not against it being played. But, I'm against anything being forced to be played that the public tells a radio station they don't want to hear. Local artists want this "balance" on radio. But, they're also the first to tell people they can market their music on "You Tube" and i-Tunes and whatever. They say radio is soooooo "passe'". But, by God, they want the airplay if they can get it mandated. Talk about artists speaking out of both sides of their mouths...

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Jason: I don't know where your station is so I have to take your assessment somewhat at face value. However, I find the people who work at stations with a program line-up like yours, and people who LISTEN to a station like yours for an extended period of time often end up with an inaccurate calibration in their thinking as to what is conservative, what is liberal, and is there anything else.

I live in the umbrella of where the Boortz program and the Clark Howard program originate and had considerable exposure to them even before they went into national syndication.

I'm trying to think of anything where Boortz is liberal. As a libertarian he does not always stick to the orthodox conservative position on some topics. The problems with "conservative talk radio" is that it constantly "programs" listeners to believe and understand that any position or opinion that is not orthodox conservative is by default LIBERAL. If you are a slightly soft conservative, then you are a liberal. If you are MILITANTLY MODERATE then you are a liberal. If you a little be right of center, you are a liberal.

This is what I personally dislike about conservative talk radio as we know it. I have no problem with conservatives being conservative, and reciting the talking points of being conservative. As a citizen I abhor the trend to paint ALL PEOPLES who are not orthodox conservatives and people you don't want to trust, people you don't want to talk to, people you don't want to go to church with, and people you don't want to have serious conversation with. Being a conservative is legitimate and honorable. DEMONIZING all people who do not adhere to the conservative line is illegitimate and dishonorable.

Back to Boortz. Other than the gay issue and maybe abortion, tell me what issues Boortz ever takes a liberal position on.

Turning to the topic of this thread: You do some programming at the local level. Does that programming communicate anything that would say to your listeners: it's o.k. to disagree with the people who occupy the majority of our broadcast day. It's o.k. to be an independent. It's o.k. to be a mixed bag and support some issues favored by conservatives, and support some issues favored by liberals... and some issues favored by folks who plow right down the middle.

If, big if, if anyone can make a good argument that radio station licensees have some obligation to their LOCAL market to practice fairness, then I would make the point that having one hour of conservative programming followed by one hour of liberal programming does not constitute "fairness". Particularly when both hours are national programs talking only about national issues.

When all the dust settles, we may come to realize what your station is doing is exactly what a task force of intelligent Americans would conclude is the fair thing you should be doing, or may choose to do. If I were appointed to such a task force, there would be some colorful and creative debate before we arrived at that conclusion. ;D

 

[The Beave]

GRC,

I have to agree with your stance.

The Beave

 

[ctkatz]

@jason

we have a station that follows pretty much that schedule. it's also the big clear channel (in the old sense, coincidentally owned by clear channel) station in town.

but a few weeks ago we had some pretty severe ice storms during the day. the station did NOT break into their syndicated programming and aired news of the worst of the traffic, or power outages, or where power lines were down. a few months ago we had some bad winds from the remanents of huriicane ike. it was until several hours later (like 3 or 4 on a saturday) before they finally got someone in to have people call in about the hardest hit areas.

can the station claim localism? yes. is it? i'd say no. it's just my opinion, but when you claim localism, its in the station's best interests to break into programming when events such as very severe weather is going on.

 

[KFodor]

@jason

we have a station that follows pretty much that schedule. it's also the big clear channel (in the old sense, coincidentally owned by clear channel) station in town.

but a few weeks ago we had some pretty severe ice storms during the day. the station did NOT break into their syndicated programming and aired news of the worst of the traffic, or power outages, or where power lines were down. a few months ago we had some bad winds from the remanents of huriicane ike. it was until several hours later (like 3 or 4 on a saturday) before they finally got someone in to have people call in about the hardest hit areas.

can the station claim localism? yes. is it? i'd say no. it's just my opinion, but when you claim localism, its in the station's best interests to break into programming when events such as very severe weather is going on.

And, this is the point...right here.

You are absolutely right. You see, a station that does not break in to syndicated programming to offer local information is not operating, in my view, completely in the public interest. Now, I assume that station has a General Manager...and, in all likelihood, a Program Director and maybe even...a News Director. The first question I would ask of each of those three people: where the h---l were you and why, if staffing was so short, didn't you get your butts in the station and get on the air? And don't give me the "40 hour week" answer. You're all management...you're not hourly employees! (Or, shouldn't be.)

I would also ask: What is your station's emergency plan? I mean...beyond calling someone and getting them to "come in" as soon as they could?

In our station, once we see the words "winter storm watch" in the forecast, we start calling people and begin setting up a schedule of staffers that we activate either the minute the bad weather begins to hit, or the forecast turns to a "winter storm warning".

In the case of the windstorm we had here...we had a news anchor on duty when it hit. But, once the severity of the storm became evident, it did take us about 90 minutes to get everyone in and in place. But we had me, in my van, driving around the area (yes, on my day off), calling in to the news anchor doing reports basically from the beginning.

That's called being prepared. And the stations that don't do this, and still call themselves a "news-talk" are fooling themselves, and are not fully serving the public interest.

 

[KFodor]

Jason: I don't know where your station is so I have to take your assessment somewhat at face value. However, I find the people who work at stations with a program line-up like yours, and people who LISTEN to a station like yours for an extended period of time often end up with an inaccurate calibration in their thinking as to what is conservative, what is liberal, and is there anything else.

I live in the umbrella of where the Boortz program and the Clark Howard program originate and had considerable exposure to them even before they went into national syndication.

I'm trying to think of anything where Boortz is liberal. As a libertarian he does not always stick to the orthodox conservative position on some topics. The problems with "conservative talk radio" is that it constantly "programs" listeners to believe and understand that any position or opinion that is not orthodox conservative is by default LIBERAL. If you are a slightly soft conservative, then you are a liberal. If you are MILITANTLY MODERATE then you are a liberal. If you a little be right of center, you are a liberal.

This is what I personally dislike about conservative talk radio as we know it. I have no problem with conservatives being conservative, and reciting the talking points of being conservative. As a citizen I abhor the trend to paint ALL PEOPLES who are not orthodox conservatives and people you don't want to trust, people you don't want to talk to, people you don't want to go to church with, and people you don't want to have serious conversation with. Being a conservative is legitimate and honorable. DEMONIZING all people who do not adhere to the conservative line is illegitimate and dishonorable.

Back to Boortz. Other than the gay issue and maybe abortion, tell me what issues Boortz ever takes a liberal position on.

Turning to the topic of this thread: You do some programming at the local level. Does that programming communicate anything that would say to your listeners: it's o.k. to disagree with the people who occupy the majority of our broadcast day. It's o.k. to be an independent. It's o.k. to be a mixed bag and support some issues favored by conservatives, and support some issues favored by liberals... and some issues favored by folks who plow right down the middle.

If, big if, if anyone can make a good argument that radio station licensees have some obligation to their LOCAL market to practice fairness, then I would make the point that having one hour of conservative programming followed by one hour of liberal programming does not constitute "fairness". Particularly when both hours are national programs talking only about national issues.

When all the dust settles, we may come to realize what your station is doing is exactly what a task force of intelligent Americans would conclude is the fair thing you should be doing, or may choose to do. If I were appointed to such a task force, there would be some colorful and creative debate before we arrived at that conclusion. ;D

GRC: I really respect you. You and I have both traded comments on these boards. I recognize you probably don't agree with me 100% and, probably I'm the same way. Yet, I do read in your posts, the same passion that I have for this business. And, there I think we are on the same page. So, here's my two cents (and excuse me if I ramble a bit.):

I agree Boortz sides right of center, or hard right probably 90% of the time. (Though you should be in the station and take the calls from angry conservatives whenever he takes a left of center position.)

On election night, our "local" coverage included interviews from republican and democratic operatives. When Barack Obama was declared the winner, I said: "History was made in America tonight. Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States, becoming the first person of African-American descent to ascend to the White House and the Oval Office." (And boy...did I get hate e-mails for that!)

But, I also would bring up the fact that trying to mix conservative with liberal shows only seems to work in either extremely large markets (like Chicago) or out west. Here in the Midwest, I have personally been involved with at least 2 talk stations that tried it...it seemed as though conservatives turned the liberal programs off, and not a large enough contingent of liberal listeners would tune in to the liberal hosts. The liberal programs consistently rated lower than the conservative programs. This is why I don't think that a conservative program mandated to be followed by a liberal program would work from a business standpoint.

Is it a station's fault that when such "balance" is tried...that it fails? Why must a radio station be federally obligated to air any particular type of content if (and here's the big if) its' news programming is fair, and through other means beyond program content, the station is offering opposite trains of thought?

What "other means" am I talking about? We air public service announcements about man-made climate change, the need to protect the environment, diversity, etc. Next week, I hope to cover a speech by the president of one of our local black colleges, and play his remarks back, in their entirety on a public affairs program that I do. I could be surprised at his remarks, but I'm not expecting to completely hear Limbaugh speak coming from this man. But, he represents a major college in our area and his thoughts and views are worthy of being heard, based upon the issues list we do that is based upon ascertainment interviews that we do...all a part of serving the public "interest, convenience and necessity". So, shouldn't we be getting some credit here?

I don't know if it is necessary to have programming that says, "it's ok to think differently than what our program hosts say". Rather, I would think it's more important to suggest: "listen to what our hosts say, listen to what the other side says and make up your own mind".

Now, in reading other posts here, some people raise a point that is worthy of making - are all of the radio licensees doing their jobs in this area? I respectfully answer - no. I believe there are hundreds, maybe thousands of stations in the U.S. that are not. Their idea of "public service" is to air a syndicated show like "Newsweek On Air" and say they're serving "the public interest". They won't offer local PSA's, they may claim to be too "poor" to have a fulltime "News Director". Or, they do newstalk as a format, but won't honor the "news" part of that name to provide good news coverage. Some of them are like this.

The answer from those operators is "news is too expensive". Well, here's something to chew on:

30 years ago, the 4 major radio groups in my town all had full-time news operations. How did they afford it?

They could afford it because the companies weren't public...there weren't stockholders deciding they needed to turn 40, 50, 60% profit each year.

They could afford it because they didn't buy the radio stations for 15 or 20 times more what the station was worth, making debt service more important than serving the public "interest, convenience and necessity".

I don't think the original reasons behind consolidation were that bad. But, somewhere along the way the baby got thrown out with the bath water. Clearly, some owners and some companies made business decisions that defied logic. And they...and the public the station's serve are the worse for it.

You are right to mention those who try to demonize the other side. That's fair criticism. But, google the words "Republicans are idiots". Or listen to some (not all, but some) of the left-leaning talk shows. There's as much demonization going on there, too.

Does our station do a "local" talk show that talks about taxes, urban growth, etc.? No. We've tried it. Multiple times. It doesn't do as well, ratings wise than the national shows. So, might it be better to cover these issues in the context of news programming, or public affairs? Both sides get heard without commentary. In a previous post, I mentioned the story about the old WAVI in Dayton. The talk station that did survive from 1972 to 1983 or so with program hosts that varied politically. Why did it make it...when today's stations can't seem to pull that off?

The answer is "local"...all of the shows were local. You might disagree with a host's politics, but his opinions on other topics discussed (local restaurants, local businesses, local sports teams, etc.) may have kept you listening. I'm not sure you can mix both local and national talk. But, you might be able to make a local talk station and a national talk station with good local news work. (If you have the backing and the bucks to pull it off).

If I may brag one more time about something we do here: every election cycle, every local candidate for public office in our area is contacted and offered 2 minutes of airtime to speak on why he/she is right for the job. These 2 minute blurbs are contained within a 2 hour long program that airs, without commentary, on a Sunday afternoon. Yes, a few candidates don't take us up on the offer. That's their problem. But those that do are given a platform...one without a host pontificating over whether they are right or wrong.

I'm sorry for rambling so much here, but I think this is my point: we should not be arguing over whether a station's programming is "fair"...the ultimate litmus test should be whether or not the station is serving the public "interest, convenience and necessity". That argument would take in far more than just the content of the programming which is offered as "entertainment", and would include the overall job that the station does in serving its community.

 

[smedge2006]

What "other means" am I talking about? We air public service announcements about man-made climate change, the need to protect the environment, diversity, etc. Next week, I hope to cover a speech by the president of one of our local black colleges, and play his remarks back, in their entirety on a public affairs program that I do. I could be surprised at his remarks, but I'm not expecting to completely hear Limbaugh speak coming from this man. But, he represents a major college in our area and his thoughts and views are worthy of being heard, based upon the issues list we do that is based upon ascertainment interviews that we do...all a part of serving the public "interest, convenience and necessity". So, shouldn't we be getting some credit here?

Not if you run it at 6 a.m. Sunday the way most stations do.

Why must a radio station be federally obligated to air any particular type of content if (and here's the big if) its' news programming is fair, and through other means beyond program content, the station is offering opposite trains of thought?

Big point here. A lot of news-talkers have been adding Fox News Radio. One would have to presume they're doing that so the slant of their news matches that of their dominant audience. What little local news is still produced around the country appears more and more to take that same slant. All in the name of superserving the P-1's.

I'm sorry for rambling so much here, but I think this is my point: we should not be arguing over whether a station's programming is "fair"...the ultimate litmus test should be whether or not the station is serving the public "interest, convenience and necessity". That argument would take in far more than just the content of the programming which is offered as "entertainment", and would include the overall job that the station does in serving its community.

Another area where talk radio tries to have it both ways. Conservative hosts influence minds and are taken as serious spokesmen on many issues -- but when called on an outrageous remark, they go back to the "entertainment" defense. Entertainment is Dan Ingram and Scott Shannon (when not voicing Sean Hannity liners)in their heydays, or Ryan Seacrest -- apolitical. Venture into politics and by definition it's something more.

Here in the Midwest, I have personally been involved with at least 2 talk stations that tried it...it seemed as though conservatives turned the liberal programs off, and not a large enough contingent of liberal listeners would tune in to the liberal hosts. The liberal programs consistently rated lower than the conservative programs. This is why I don't think that a conservative program mandated to be followed by a liberal program would work from a business standpoint.

The one type of host that has been proven to work is a combative liberal host. But station management doesn't have the stomach for hate calls and e-mails, and probably disagrees with the liberal host anyway (despite Brian Maloney's fantasies, talk radio management in this country, especially middle management including program directors, is OVERWHELMINGLY conservative). So they shy away from the combative host and bring in the milquetoast liberal punching bag. And then say "see, it doesn't work."

 

[ctkatz]

^^^
i don't like the politics currently on talk radio either. however, i want both the progressive and conservative formats given an equal chance to survive, which is currently and decidedly not the case. the progressive stations are in the markets that have a progressive station have weak signals, engineering problems, and no advertising. and even when these stations rate in the local books, they get flipped. can't say the same about the conservative stations though. i'm not surprised that progressive stations get ratings because i know people listen to liberal talk. what surprises me is that these stations get ratings DEspite weak signals, engineering problems, and no advertising.

the perfect scenario is two stations with equal signal strengths covering the same area with the same advertisers, one programmed with progtalk, the other conservotalk, and then watch the advertisers and ratings books for one time period. but that's not the topic of this thread.

@jason
this is the reason why the only time i turn any of my radios on is either at night to pick up any long distance signals i can, or when local sports is on. the last straw for me came when in december 2007 the clear channel station i mentioned above fired the local 9p-12a guy (who did nothing wrong except make too much) and replaced him with savage instead of another local personality. even though there is other local talk things to listen to, they were owned by clear channel. i would rather listen to my own stuff then see another person who i liked to listen to get fired for no other reason than they made too much. someone said on another non-related board years ago- there will come a time when the only thing different from a station in cleveland and a station in st. louis is the station id, weather, and local news drops. none of these stations are local anymore, they are just local versions of texas radio.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

We have ventured far and wide and at moments have lost tract of the basic and original question: What are your localism requirements?

We would probably do well to all take a deep breath, and then go back and read the FCC Rules and Regulations and the "case law" as lawyers would say, by reviewing decisions handed down when stations have found themselves in disputes with the regulatory agency.

Does anybody remember the FCC? ;D

Does anyone have a list of the specific things Communications Law and FCC Rules and Regs actually say that address this topic?

Does anyone have realistic changes they would prose to amend the laws, rules and regs?

We have shared a lot of opinions. Are we losing sight of the boundaries?

 

[KFodor]

What "other means" am I talking about? We air public service announcements about man-made climate change, the need to protect the environment, diversity, etc. Next week, I hope to cover a speech by the president of one of our local black colleges, and play his remarks back, in their entirety on a public affairs program that I do. I could be surprised at his remarks, but I'm not expecting to completely hear Limbaugh speak coming from this man. But, he represents a major college in our area and his thoughts and views are worthy of being heard, based upon the issues list we do that is based upon ascertainment interviews that we do...all a part of serving the public "interest, convenience and necessity". So, shouldn't we be getting some credit here?

Not if you run it at 6 a.m. Sunday the way most stations do.

Why must a radio station be federally obligated to air any particular type of content if (and here's the big if) its' news programming is fair, and through other means beyond program content, the station is offering opposite trains of thought?

Big point here. A lot of news-talkers have been adding Fox News Radio. One would have to presume they're doing that so the slant of their news matches that of their dominant audience. What little local news is still produced around the country appears more and more to take that same slant. All in the name of superserving the P-1's.

I'm sorry for rambling so much here, but I think this is my point: we should not be arguing over whether a station's programming is "fair"...the ultimate litmus test should be whether or not the station is serving the public "interest, convenience and necessity". That argument would take in far more than just the content of the programming which is offered as "entertainment", and would include the overall job that the station does in serving its community.

Another area where talk radio tries to have it both ways. Conservative hosts influence minds and are taken as serious spokesmen on many issues -- but when called on an outrageous remark, they go back to the "entertainment" defense. Entertainment is Dan Ingram and Scott Shannon (when not voicing Sean Hannity liners)in their heydays, or Ryan Seacrest -- apolitical. Venture into politics and by definition it's something more.

Here in the Midwest, I have personally been involved with at least 2 talk stations that tried it...it seemed as though conservatives turned the liberal programs off, and not a large enough contingent of liberal listeners would tune in to the liberal hosts. The liberal programs consistently rated lower than the conservative programs. This is why I don't think that a conservative program mandated to be followed by a liberal program would work from a business standpoint.

The one type of host that has been proven to work is a combative liberal host. But station management doesn't have the stomach for hate calls and e-mails, and probably disagrees with the liberal host anyway (despite Brian Maloney's fantasies, talk radio management in this country, especially middle management including program directors, is OVERWHELMINGLY conservative). So they shy away from the combative host and bring in the milquetoast liberal punching bag. And then say "see, it doesn't work."

1.) The PA show airs at 7:30 am. Not 6. Our AM/FM Newstalker airs PA shows from 7 to 10 am on Sunday.

2.) I have been in radio news for over 30 years. Fox's opinion shows are right-leaned, no argument. I see
both left-favoring and right-favoring stories on their news networks. We use both types of stories in our
newscasts. No one from ownership to management on down requires us, asks us or expects us to taylor
our "news" to the political beliefs of the audience. If you come to our station, take the hate calls, and
read the nasty e-mails, you'll see proof of this.

3.) I don't care about what Hannity or anyone says...the talk shows are "entertainment". It is only the
fringe left or fringe right who takes these shows way beyond what they are intended to be. Most of
our listeners, as proven by research are on neither fringe. These shows are entertainment to them.
Many of our listeners would tell you they don't agree 100% with every host on every issue. By the
way, since we're talking about talk shows, let's bring up some syndicated morning shows such as
Tom Joyner or Russ Parr. Both of these guys can be very liberal in the political views they express
on their morning radio shows. They, too are "entertainment". Should they be forced to have a
"conservative" to bounce their ideas off of? Let's not let them "have it both ways" here, either.

4.) A combative liberal host might work...my mention of WAVI in Dayton in the 70's recalls the liberal
mid-day host did have the tendency to be combative when he wanted to be. Even so, his overall
numbers did not equal the conservative hosts, though he tended to get more women listening than
men. Go figure. Even having said this, though...we take plenty of hate calls and hate mail on both
sides at our station. When you're getting this...especially when you're getting it from both sides is
pretty much proof that we are presenting some balance in our programming. This usually means
people from both sides of the spectrum are listening and paying attention. We like hate e-mails and
hate calls - it usually means our ratings are going up.

4-B.) One of our shows in Columbus was John and Ken from KFI. They are hardly milquetoast. They failed
miserably on our station.

I hope this answers your questions.

 

[KFodor]

^^^
i don't like the politics currently on talk radio either. however, i want both the progressive and conservative formats given an equal chance to survive, which is currently and decidedly not the case. the progressive stations are in the markets that have a progressive station have weak signals, engineering problems, and no advertising. and even when these stations rate in the local books, they get flipped. can't say the same about the conservative stations though. i'm not surprised that progressive stations get ratings because i know people listen to liberal talk. what surprises me is that these stations get ratings DEspite weak signals, engineering problems, and no advertising.

the perfect scenario is two stations with equal signal strengths covering the same area with the same advertisers, one programmed with progtalk, the other conservotalk, and then watch the advertisers and ratings books for one time period. but that's not the topic of this thread.

@jason
this is the reason why the only time i turn any of my radios on is either at night to pick up any long distance signals i can, or when local sports is on. the last straw for me came when in december 2007 the clear channel station i mentioned above fired the local 9p-12a guy (who did nothing wrong except make too much) and replaced him with savage instead of another local personality. even though there is other local talk things to listen to, they were owned by clear channel. i would rather listen to my own stuff then see another person who i liked to listen to get fired for no other reason than they made too much. someone said on another non-related board years ago- there will come a time when the only thing different from a station in cleveland and a station in st. louis is the station id, weather, and local news drops. none of these stations are local anymore, they are just local versions of texas radio.

Not working for Clear Channel, I have no idea why they terminate any employee. But, in many markets, the local guy working 9-midnight isn't making all that much anyway. And Savage, like it or not, has a track record of improving the ratings in that nighttime daypart. Within 6 months, Savage had more than doubled the numbers of the local night host we had on the air.

I'm not fond of this trend toward all syndication on all stations in a chain. But, that's the kind of radio you get when companies are allowed to purchase large numbers of stations at outrageous multiples. Consolidation, in my opinion, has not proven that you can "save your way to prosperity". You can improve your bottom line, yes. But the idea that the bottom line could be cut so far to as allow the high profits stockholders require, and consistently provide the revenue that offsets the high debt loads doesn't seem to have been proven by any of these big consolidators as time has gone along. That's, to me, what's sad about all this.