Your localism requirements?

[johnbasalla]

Just about the only people who "crave" local music are those in a band, know someone in a band, or are connected to the local music industry. Having interest in local music from my area, I hate like h... to say it, but a lot of it is mediocre at best. Guaranteed to have listeners changing the channel. Sadly, there is good local music that is released, but it gets smothered by the ton of garbage, meaning that it takes, for many people, too much work to find the good stuff.


A comment about the idea of news readers thousands of miles away reading the same story verbatim from AP. The whole localism idea is predicated on the idea that more local news and local talk would consume more airtime locally and therefore serve the areas population better.

My general feeling about this thread revolves my worry about loss of freedom of speech via too much big "mama" government intervention. I would loathe the day that the government would tell broadcasters what they have to say, when they have to say it and by how much. You want loss of freedom? How about Big Monster Government using taxpayers money to fund those who are in charge of policing the airwaves.

 

[KFodor]

OK - on our music FM's, 100% of all programming is produced locally. The local PD picks the music based on callout research and other factors. However, on talk stations, I don't think your 50% rule will result in better ratings - just jobs for mediocre talk talents who'll work for 25K a year discussing recipes, the chances of the local team going to tournament and the same trite, tired bits about potholes.

If only you had actually heard good local talk radio in its 1980's heyday rather than base your suppositions on the slanders directed by Limbaugh and other syndicators with a self-interest in disparaging it.

Smedge...c'mon, you've read my posts before. I'm 52. I was working in a talk station in the 1970's.

Sure, there were good talents. But for every good one, I saw more mediocre ones than good ones.

Take the liberal mid-day host I've talked about so often lately. Yep, he had the women, no doubt about it. I'm sure it had to do with his discussions about fine dining, recipies and fine wines, of which he was very knowledgeable. All of that, though, didn't make him sound like an average person. Many people who recollect this man still today suggest to me he was a snob. The men (who are talk radio's primary audience today), turned him off in droves. But, to his credit, he succeeded with women.

What did the PD say to me back then that was the key to talk radio? "You have to get people angry. You have to take positions you ordinarily wouldn't take. Play devil's advocate. Keep the phones ringing." Sounds like some hosts of today, doesn't it?

Little has changed to me. Sure, there are some really talented people, and some really mediocre ones. And if you really think forcing radio stations to some draconian "hook 'em to the stretcher" rules will bring major undiscovered talent to the forefront, you're fooling yourself. Cream, in this business, rises to the top without FCC mandates. I see it all the time. On both sides of the spectrum. But there's a whole lot more "wannabes" than there are "bees".

 

[The Beave]

What did the PD say to me back then that was the key to talk radio? "You have to get people angry. You have to take positions you ordinarily wouldn't take. Play devil's advocate. Keep the phones ringing." Sounds like some hosts of today, doesn't it?

Jason, You are 100% correct and it works 99% of the time. Only the libs get the 1% factor.

That my friends is why they are pushing the fairness docterine.

Just remember 1% is the hot air exists because they can't hold a candle to the conservatives issues. That 1% won't even inflate a hot air balloon and get it to fly.

 

[SeanMGilbow]

What did the PD say to me back then that was the key to talk radio? "You have to get people angry. You have to take positions you ordinarily wouldn't take. Play devil's advocate. Keep the phones ringing." Sounds like some hosts of today, doesn't it?

Jason, You are 100% correct and it works 99% of the time. Only the libs get the 1% factor.

That my friends is why they are pushing the fairness docterine.

Just remember 1% is the hot air exists because they can't hold a candle to the conservatives issues. That 1% won't even inflate a hot air balloon and get it to fly.

Apparently the Beave doesn't follow the news. The Senate voted against a return to the Fairness Doctrine last week.

By the way, Beave...I'm sure Stephanie Miller would love to add you to her daily "Beaver Stack." ;D

 

[amfmxm]

Just about the only people who "crave" local music are those in a band, know someone in a band, or are connected to the local music industry. Having interest in local music from my area, I hate like h... to say it, but a lot of it is mediocre at best. Guaranteed to have listeners changing the channel. Sadly, there is good local music that is released, but it gets smothered by the ton of garbage, meaning that it takes, for many people, too much work to find the good stuff.


A comment about the idea of news readers thousands of miles away reading the same story verbatim from AP. The whole localism idea is predicated on the idea that more local news and local talk would consume more airtime locally and therefore serve the areas population better.

My general feeling about this thread revolves my worry about loss of freedom of speech via too much big "mama" government intervention. I would loathe the day that the government would tell broadcasters what they have to say, when they have to say it and by how much. You want loss of freedom? How about Big Monster Government using taxpayers money to fund those who are in charge of policing the airwaves.

That's why it won't happen. First Amendment rights. The commission is not (as in "IS NOT") going to stick it's collective toe into attempting to tell/require broadcast licensees to say/broadcast any specific type of content--"local" or otherwise, very specifically because of First Amendment rights. And by "content" I mean "programming."

One of the funniest aspects of this recent wave of rightwing fear-mongering has been the suggestion that liberals suddenly want to curb free speech--one of the core principles of liberalism. Absolute nonsense. (Yes, the right's baiting got people like Bill Press & Debbie Stabenow riled up enough to react, but dey wuz jes playin' witcha).

The closest to "localism" the FCC will come is the real possibility of opening up more--many more--FM channels for LPFM. And that's one you can bet on.

The idea is that these tiny little FM signals are, by their very limited nature, forced to focus on "local" stuff.

They think they can force localism through the regulation of frequency allocation. But they will never attempt (again) to force localism through the regulation of programming.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

You are 100% correct and it works 99% of the time. Only the libs get the 1% factor.

That my friends is why they are pushing the fairness docterine.

Just remember 1% is the hot air exists because they can't hold a candle to the conservatives issues. That 1% won't even inflate a hot air balloon and get it to fly.

I left my "Gobble-dee-gook magic decoder ring" at the office today. Could you explain the above quote is trying to say? If you can explain what you said, I promise to get Elton John to sing "Candle in the Wind" at your funeral someday.

 

[ctkatz]

You are 100% correct and it works 99% of the time. Only the libs get the 1% factor.

That my friends is why they are pushing the fairness docterine.

Just remember 1% is the hot air exists because they can't hold a candle to the conservatives issues. That 1% won't even inflate a hot air balloon and get it to fly.

I left my "Gobble-dee------- magic decoder ring" at the office today. Could you explain the above quote is trying to say? If you can explain what you said, I promise to get Elton John to sing "Candle in the Wind" at your funeral someday.

and while you're doing that, explain how "they're pushing the fairness doctrine" when they aren't and never have.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I don't remember the exact quote, but I remember an anecdote about the Supreme Court discussing a case where they needed to decide on the definition of pornography.  And one of the justices said:  "I don't know how to put it in words but I know it when I see it."

In this particular thread, and in many more discussion on Radio-Info we do a lot of banging our heads against the wall arguing about localism, is it useful or critical to radio, and what is it.  None of us seem to be able to define it very well,  but I know it when I hear it.

Go sample this link from time to time during their morning show  (6-9 AM Eastern).    Gainesville, GA is located under the umbrella of Atlanta.  It is the kind of town that has usually lost local radio because every station in town wants to be a rim-shot into the big city.  These people own a cluster of three stations (LOCALLY owned by the way) and this is their flagship.  Their style isn't the ONLY way to "be localism" but it will do till you can come up with something better.

http://www.streamaudio.com/stations/asx/wdun_am.asx

Tell me what'cha think.

 

[gr8oldies]

Im sure they do a great job, the problem is if you're going to
write it into law you have to write a legal definition, or have judges define it on a case by case basis

 

[kaufcom]

The only way to get more localism in radio is to restore ownership caps. Since ownership caps were removed in 1996 localism has been steadily abandoned by radio station owners. Also, revenues have declined by 25%, major station owners are on the verge of bankruptcy and local talk has largely been replaced by syndicated talk and local jocks replaced by time shifting, voice tracking etc.

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

The only way to get more localism in radio is to restore ownership caps. Since ownership caps were removed in 1996 localism has been steadily abandoned by radio station owners. Also, revenues have declined by 25%, major station owners are on the verge of bankruptcy and local talk has largely been replaced by syndicated talk and local jocks replaced by time shifting, voice tracking etc.

Do we believe a single owner owning one station is going to staff more air talent than a cluster of five that can sell as a group? Why do we believe that?

Am I going to dump a successful syndicated show for a local one? Why? Because I am a local owner? I'm confused by this logic.

 

[smedge2006]

Little has changed to me. Sure, there are some really talented people, and some really mediocre ones. And if you really think forcing radio stations to some draconian "hook 'em to the stretcher" rules will bring major undiscovered talent to the forefront, you're fooling yourself.

How do you think all that talent was discovered in the first place?

Rush Limbaugh was discovered because KFBK didn't have syndication to turn to in 1984. They HAD to be local.

Sean Hannity was discovered in the 1980's because WVNN didn't have many syndication choices outside of Rush and Chuck Harder.

Neal Boortz was discovered in the 1970's because WRNG in Atlanta was all-talk, all the time and the only way to be that was all local, all the time.

Virtually every host who has built value in radio (as opposed to the crossovers from other media who usually tank in a year or two) got his break because stations were forced by economic and technical realities to put a body in that chair, rather than flipping a switch and going to the bird. Restrictions focus the mind. Monopolists operating in an unfettered marketplace foster only bloat and chaos.

 

[kaufcom]

I said

The only way to get more localism in radio is to restore ownership caps. Since ownership caps were removed in 1996 localism has been steadily abandoned by radio station owners. Also, revenues have declined by 25%, major station owners are on the verge of bankruptcy and local talk has largely been replaced by syndicated talk and local jocks replaced by time shifting, voice tracking etc.

The Ultimate Warrior said

Do we believe a single owner owning one station is going to staff more air talent than a cluster of five that can sell as a group? Why do we believe that?

Am I going to dump a successful syndicated show for a local one? Why? Because I am a local owner? I'm confused by this logic.

Then I said

Actually broadcasters operated under the 12-12-12 rule before 1996. Yes the industry was in trouble, but since that time the radio industry has gone to hell in a handbasket. Group owners like Clear Channel, Citadel and Cumulus borrowed huge sums of money to buy thousands of over-priced stations. Since that time they have been cutting back operations just to pay off their debt. As stated above there is much less localism today than there was when the old rules were in effect

[/quote]

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

I said

The only way to get more localism in radio is to restore ownership caps. Since ownership caps were removed in 1996 localism has been steadily abandoned by radio station owners. Also, revenues have declined by 25%, major station owners are on the verge of bankruptcy and local talk has largely been replaced by syndicated talk and local jocks replaced by time shifting, voice tracking etc.

The Ultimate Warrior said

Do we believe a single owner owning one station is going to staff more air talent than a cluster of five that can sell as a group? Why do we believe that?

Am I going to dump a successful syndicated show for a local one? Why? Because I am a local owner? I'm confused by this logic.

Then I said

Actually broadcasters operated under the 12-12-12 rule before 1996. Yes the industry was in trouble, but since that time the radio industry has gone to hell in a handbasket. Group owners like Clear Channel, Citadel and Cumulus borrowed huge sums of money to buy thousands of over-priced stations. Since that time they have been cutting back operations just to pay off their debt. As stated above there is much less localism today than there was when the old rules were in effect

We all saw what you posted. But are we assuming that the government is going to force the owners to unload stations on the cheap to local yokel ownership and they are going to put local talent on the air? Why would they?

If the government makes me unload my sticks, who sets the price?

We are gonna go from groups with 900 stations to 12? Dream on. What would stop me from getting a loan and purchasing a station and running the same programming.

Pipe dreams folks, pipe dreams.

 

[listener-in]

Question:

If the government makes me unload my sticks, who sets the price?

Answer:

The market.

Or don't you believe in it because it would force prices down? As in other areas of our society, people who were very content with markets when they were rising into a bubble suddenly have second thoughts. Well, get used to it. If oligopolists were forced to divest themselves of most of their stations, it would create a much freer market than exists now. Smaller operators would be able to afford the divested stations and, with the spread of ownership, I think localism would take care of itself; there would be no need to impose specific requirements.

 

[kaufcom]

I said

Actually broadcasters operated under the 12-12-12 rule before 1996. Yes the industry was in trouble, but since that time the radio industry has gone to hell in a handbasket. Group owners like Clear Channel, Citadel and Cumulus borrowed huge sums of money to buy thousands of over-priced stations. Since that time they have been cutting back operations just to pay off their debt. As stated above there is much less localism today than there was when the old rules were in effect

The Ultimate Warrior said

Are we assuming that the government is going to force the owners to unload stations on the cheap to local yokel ownership and they are going to put local talent on the air? Why would they?

If the government makes me unload my sticks, who sets the price?

We are gonna go from groups with 900 stations to 12? Dream on. What would stop me from getting a loan and purchasing a station and running the same programming.

Pipe dreams folks, pipe dreams.

Then I said

Well, of course the market sets the price (do you have something against markets.) Many stations were actually worth more under the old rules. There was definately more local talk, local jocks, and local news. (And lots more people earning a living in radio.) This thread is about localism isn't it?

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

Question:

If the government makes me unload my sticks, who sets the price?

Answer:

The market.

Or don't you believe in it because it would force prices down? As in other areas of our society, people who were very content with markets when they were rising into a bubble suddenly have second thoughts. Well, get used to it. If oligopolists were forced to divest themselves of most of their stations, it would create a much freer market than exists now. Smaller operators would be able to afford the divested stations and, with the spread of ownership, I think localism would take care of itself; there would be no need to impose specific requirements.

Well wouldn't this not be a free market? If the government is forcing me to sell that isn't really a free market.

Let me put it in terms you might get, the government decides you need to sell your double wide to someone, the buyers all knowing the government has mandated the sale can low ball you.

IS that a free market if you don't have a choice to sell or not?

 

[The Ultimate Warrior]

I said

Actually broadcasters operated under the 12-12-12 rule before 1996. Yes the industry was in trouble, but since that time the radio industry has gone to hell in a handbasket. Group owners like Clear Channel, Citadel and Cumulus borrowed huge sums of money to buy thousands of over-priced stations. Since that time they have been cutting back operations just to pay off their debt. As stated above there is much less localism today than there was when the old rules were in effect

The Ultimate Warrior said

Are we assuming that the government is going to force the owners to unload stations on the cheap to local yokel ownership and they are going to put local talent on the air? Why would they?

If the government makes me unload my sticks, who sets the price?

We are gonna go from groups with 900 stations to 12? Dream on. What would stop me from getting a loan and purchasing a station and running the same programming.

Pipe dreams folks, pipe dreams.

Then I said

Well, of course the market sets the price (do you have something against markets.) Many stations were actually worth more under the old rules. There was definately more local talk, local jocks, and local news. (And lots more people earning a living in radio.) This thread is about localism isn't it?

zzzzz

 

[SeanMGilbow]

Let me put it in terms you might get, the government decides you need to sell your double wide to someone, the buyers all knowing the government has mandated the sale can low ball you.

IS that a free market if you don't have a choice to sell or not?

Well, it would be free of such things as this condescending commentary.

 

[listener-in]

Let me put it in terms you might get, the government decides you need to sell your double wide to someone, the buyers all knowing the government has mandated the sale can low ball you.

IS that a free market if you don't have a choice to sell or not?

I've been reading up on Adam Smith, the apostle of the free market. I suggest you do likewise; he had plenty to say about monopolies, the public interest and the flouting of the public interest by those in business who rig the market to suit themselves. I suspect that if they were both more familiar with his writings, the right might disown him a little and the left adopt him more.

Business is like water; both are an undoubted good and an undoubted necessity; but both can inflict damage when uncontrolled. If you don't agree with that, you have a short memory for hurricane Katrina and an even shorter one for what got us into our present economic mess. If government had no right to determine the framework within which business is conducted in the public interest, we might as well go back to the dark ages.

Now to your question. I'm sure you love it when government works in your favor to the exclusion of the public interest, as it has increasingly done for three decades under administrations of both parties. You may as well accept that the pendulum is swinging back to reflect the public interest. As a listener, I'm far from alone in believing that media concentration has not served my interest - look at the enormous (and incidentally, bipartisan) attendances around the nation when the FCC held public meetings around the country. Also, I'm sure there are many would be entrepreneurs who would love to get into radio but have been priced out of it. To me, it's a free market when more people rather than fewer have the opportunity to become station owners.

Well, it would be free of such things as this condescending commentary.

Thanks, I was thinking the same thing.