11/20/2008 09:54:44 AM EST

Screw the Fairness Doctrine

posted by calturner

Theres a much better fix to talk radio than the Fairness Doctrine

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

Repeal the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

It will create jobs and break up the nonsense monopolies.

Im looking at you Clear Channel.

Tear it down, tear it all down.

 

 

< American healthcare system | Man kills himself on live stream >
 Display:
Screw the Fairness Doctrine | 52 comments (52 topical, 0 hidden)
That would be one thing (none / 1)

 

But the Fairness Doctrine IS A GOOD THING. Please don't listen to the Right Wing descriptions of what it was and what it did.

 

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 10:24:36 AM EST

You misunderstand the Fairness Doctrine (none / 1)

It's purpose never was to "control the editorial content of radio stations or tv stations".

"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented."

-- Steve Rendall, The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

A station could promote it's own editorial opinion as more valid than the opinion of an opposition, but it had to present the opposing viewpoint fairly and accurately.

Given that the public owns the airwaves, isn't it reasonable that the public be able to determine how they get used?  If not, then we would be hearing those seven dirty words at noon from kiddie shows.

Besides, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, the Supreme Court ruled (rather convincingly for most of us) that the FCC has can enforce such a policy in a case of on-air personal attack.  Other rulings from the Court suggest that it is constitutional but must not be construed so as to restrict a station's ability to express its own opinion.

However, as you say, it's only a matter of time before the Court provides more clarification on these issues, presuming, of course, that we ever require "fairness" from our news organizations again.  But given the unfettered practices of Fox News, it's clear that neither fairness nor accuracy or honesty are required for an organization to claim that it presents "news".

Hmmm... how about instead of a "fairness doctrine" we enforce "truth in advertising".  Fox News would have to stop using the word "News" and would have to market itself as a "biased, dishonest source of entertainment for right-wingers who wish to diddle themselves".


by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 12:05:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You disagree because you have a BAD definition (none / 0)
There is NOTHING in the Fairness Doctrine which controls editorial content. Despite what they keep telling you, it has NOTHING to do with "minute for minute." Remember when it WAS in effect and OCCASIONALLY a tv or radio station offered a "dissenting comment" for something a station owner or manager had an editorial about? Never longer than 5 minutes and normally placed inside the local news hour. It had NOTHING to do with content of the shows - NO station would be required to have three hours of response to Rush Limbaugh. That's NOT the way it works. IT NEVER DID.

Why do you refuse to believe me on this?

An example of the Fairness Doctrine in effect would be if Joe Blow, Station Manager for KCUF came on and gave an editorial comment about how a new water treatment plant would ruin home values, endanger a species, and hurt a beautiful view. The Fairness Doctrine allowed a member of the community to come on and give the alternative view that the area needs more water, the plant would provide jobs, and a landscaping plan was in place to make sure the project wouldn't be an eyesore.

The station limits the response time (usually five minutes) and they are NOT required to give voice to more than one person/group for the response.

Have you ever heard the disclaimer, "KCUF does not endorse the views expressed on the Rush Limbaugh show nor are they responsible for it's content." That covers them from his show being considered "Editorial Content." Now, if the Station Manager came on and did an editorial ABOUT Rush, then it would leave an opening for an "opposing view" segment. Not about the show - about the Editorial. It is the equivalent of a Newspaper's 'Letters To The Editor" - but they can limit it to ONE letter.

How in the world does that HURT Free Speech?

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 12:21:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good definition (none / 0)
Bill Ruder, Assistant U.S. Secretary of Commerce during the Kennedy Administration, said, "We had a massive strategy to use the 'fairness doctrine' to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hoped the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

The Federal Communications Commission's Fairness Doctrine, which became a formal agency regulation in the late 1940s but had been in effect since the late 1920s, required broadcast stations--radio first, then television--to provide "opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints" on controversial issues. The language sounds anodyne. But in practice it had a huge influence on how broadcasters operated. Broadcasters who didn't follow the rules could incur FCC fines, be forced to give free time to voices that regulators believed had been treated unfairly, and even lose their licenses. Tapes and other evidence in hand, FCC staff investigating complaints would "pull out stopwatches," Jim McKinney, a former head of the commission's Mass Media Bureau, recently recalled. "They would start timing how many minutes and seconds a broadcaster devoted to the issue of public importance. And then, depending on how that came out, they would either close the investigation, or they would prepare an item for the commission to take an enforcement action."

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 12:54:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Give me an example. (none / 0)
This is a standard Right Wing talking point. It is also utter NONSENSE.

Can you show ONE case of ANY right wing station losing it's license due to content? Can you offer even ONE case of a show being taken off the air because it failed to follow the Fairness Doctrine? In the last 80 YEARS???

I can't find any...maybe you'll have better luck.

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 01:07:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
For example (none / 0)
Can you show ONE case of ANY right wing station losing it's license due to content? Can you offer even ONE case of a show being taken off the air because it failed to follow the Fairness Doctrine? In the last 80 YEARS???

Yes, I can.

In 1972, in Brandywine Main Line Radio v. Federal Communications Commission, the court upheld the Commission's decision to deny WXUR's license renewal based on Fairness Doctrine violations.

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 01:30:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not the Reader's Digest version. (none / 0)

"The Commission refused to adopt the Hearing Examiner's Initial Opinion and adopted its own opinion on July 7, 1970 in which it denied the licensee's application for renewal after an independent review of the record. In its review the Commission drew adverse conclusions with reference to Brandywine's compliance with the fairness doctrine, compliance with the personal attack principle, and also with reference to the manner in which Brandywine misrepresented its program plans to the Commission" - Brandywine-main Line Radio, Inc., Appellant, v. Federal Communications Commission, Greater Philadelphiacouncil of Churches et al., Intervenors
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 473 F.2d 16

You should read the whole thing. Fascinating.

And saying Brandywine lost it's license because of the Fairness Doctrine is like saying a repeat drunk driver lost his license because the car kept swerving...

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 04:20:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I read the whole thing (none / 0)
...compliance with the personal attack principle...

Uh, wasn't the personal attack principle part of the Fairness Doctrine?

...the manner in which Brandywine misrepresented its program plans to the Commission...

So you're okay with every radio station having to keep the Commission updated on its new programs? And a few months delay in debuting Interfaith Dialogue justified denial of license renewal?

WXUR dragged its feet getting a show on the air and it didn't follow the silly personal attack principle of the Fairness Doctrine. Big deal. I don't listen to religious stations for a fair and balanced presentation.

by Qwerty on 11/23/2008 11:02:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
In addition (none / 0)
The civil libertarian Nat Hentoff remembers what it was like to be a broadcaster in the old days. "I was in radio under the reign of the Fairness Doctrine, at WMEX in Boston in the 1940s and early Fifties," he recalls in a talk at Hillsdale College, noting that he would occasionally offer political opinions on air, including on his music programs. "Suddenly Fairness Doctrine letters started coming in from the FCC and our station's front office panicked. Lawyers had to be summoned; tapes of accused broadcasters had to be examined with extreme care; voluminous responses had to be prepared and sent. After a few of these FCC letters, our boss announced that there would be no more controversy of any sort on WMEX. We had been muzzled."

by Qwerty on 11/20/2008 01:31:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That was a MANAGEMENT decision. (none / 0)
...more than likely at the behest of Salespeople (as most Radio decisions are)

The article you quote from is full of inaccuracies - one primary one is the utter BULLSHIT of "Any station that ran a show like Limbaugh’s would also have to run a left-wing alternative..." That is NOT true, and was NEVER true.

But it's one hell of an ultra-Libertarian view.

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 04:35:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KKKenTX "gentelmenly debate"? (none / 0)
You mean like these gems?
'
"history will remember American Liberals of the early 21 century as the most vile, worthless bunch of cocksuckers who ever lived in this country"

typical liberal (none / 0)
"You refuse to admit how limited your mind is relative to the Universe. You refuse to admit how little you know."

You must be really proud of that blackberry.. I have an iPhone should I mention it every week?

I guess in your world.. a blackberry is something really special.  Did you know they have elecric can openers now too?

Silly ass troll.


by Chinese Democracy on 11/20/2008 03:53:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You have oranges in your apple cart (none / 0)
Nuch as you don't want to admit it, there were over 100 stations featuring news/talk at the time. Mostly local, but a couple of Nationals - which was expensive for the stations because it was broadcast to stations over the phone lines. Or, stations would receive a reel-to-reel tape which offered commentary.

Can you tell me what ELSE exploded onto the marketplace around that time which had a huge effect on radio programming?

That's right, Satellite transmitting! Now, any station which could afford a dish had a direct link to a satellite feed. Without that inclusion, Rush Limbaugh would still be doing Rio Linda jokes in Sacramento. It's because he became cost-effective to carry - they were giving his show away to anyone who would sign up.

The Fairness Doctrine, if reenacted, would have no impact on Rush Limbaugh's show.

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 04:47:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0)

The Fairness Doctrine myths are too problematic. Its not worth the hassle, just do the option that makes the most sense: De-monopolize the industry.

Regulate fairness by creating thousands of local markets and letting the people decide whats worth staying on the air.

 

by calturner on 11/20/2008 05:03:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A little perspective. (none / 0)

More people in America enter a McDonald's per day then tune into the Rush show per week.

The average Rush listener listens to his show for less than a half an hour a day. 

The commercials on the Rush Limbaugh show get  better ratings then Rush's actual show does.

Rush and the rest of the AM talkers are irrelevant. However, if you are a true Goldwater conservative, you will know what the pros and cons of the fairness doctrine are.

This is man up time. Do you even understand what is happening here? If you do then stop being a goof.

 

by z1p101 on 11/20/2008 06:47:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ask just about anyone under 40 (none / 0)
Are you paying attention to what's being said on your radio?" And the answer is: "No! I thought that's what all the iPods and Hulus and porn-on-demand were for, to keep me away from radio!" Also: "What's a radio?" Well, as it turns out, for many Americans the radio is a constant, deafening clatter of unhinged right-wing nuthatchery"


by Chinese Democracy on 11/20/2008 07:05:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KKKenTX the comedian (none / 0)
Rush Limbaugh had this effect

Just 34 percent of Americans in a Gallup Poll released Thursday say they have a favorable view of the party, down 40 percent from a month ago, before the election.

What's worse: 61 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.

According to Gallup, that unfavorable rating is the highest the polling organization has recorded for the GOP since the measure was established in 1992.

5,920,859     47.9%..  as you can see more people support gay marriage than support  conservatives.

:)


by Chinese Democracy on 11/20/2008 10:48:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, Rush is so powerful. (none / 0)
Who was his first choice for the Republican nomination?  Who was his second choice?  Third?  Fourth?  Eighth?  And who was their nominee again?  Oh yeah, he has so much pull.

by Spencer on 11/20/2008 07:09:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Goof (none / 0)

What is this?

" Compare Rush's audience with Cenk's. Compare O'Reilly's audience with Olberdork's. See where I'm goin' here?"

Compare all of the aboves ratings to CBS, ABC or CBS in the same time slot.

Over 90% of America does not even listen to AM political talk. See where I am going here?

" Your mouthpiece is on the 20. Your cleats are on the 30. Your helmet is on the 40. Sorry I hit you so hard."

I waned you for over 2 years the blue wave was coming and you didn't believe because Rush told you otherwise.

Never mind that nonsense goof, if you are a Goldwater conservative, you know what is going on here.

 

by z1p101 on 11/20/2008 07:19:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, a completely ineffective army. (none / 0)

See my above comment.

by Spencer on 11/20/2008 08:28:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Umm Hmm (none / 0)

You have?

"Conservative talk radio is because it is powerful, and becoming stronger everyday. I've shown you the listenership numbers before."

Show them to me again. The tops for any right wing AM talker is 20 million a week (regardless of if they tune in for 10 minutes a day or not).  20 million people walk into Mickey D's a day in America.

"Conservative talk radio is because it is powerful, and becoming stronger everyday. I've shown you the listenership numbers
before."

Even if we ignore set theory, we are talking a tiny amount of Americans overall that listen to AM political talk and their families are living in reality.

"This is why attacking Talk Radio is Job 1 for the Obama Administration. Don't believe me? Watch what they do."

Will not make a difference because no one is listening to them anyway. 

Ken, I have real Arbitron numbers and the 06 and 08 elections to back my claims up. All you have is your usual drivel and nonsense.

Now, once again, what are the pros and cons of the fairness doctrine if you are a Goldwater conservative.  

I can't believe you don't know. 

by z1p101 on 11/20/2008 08:56:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
See where the worlds going KKKenTX? (none / 0)
"FIRST EVER POLITICAL WEB TALK SHOW EXPLODES WITH 50 MILLION YOU TUBE HITS

The progressive Young Turks Show gets more YouTube views in 2008 cycle than McCain

In Obama era, "the web is the future, radio is the past - the right just doesn't get that."

LOS ANGELES - The Young Turks, a popular web-based politics and entertainment talk show, broke 50 million YouTube views on Wednesday, making it one of the most watched YouTube channels ever.

With a staff of just five people, the progressive Young Turks Show has received almost twice as many views this election cycle as former presidential nominee John McCain's YouTube channel (25.7 million) and half as many hits as President-Elect Barack Obama's (113.6 million), which was run by an Internet staff of 95. The show's explosive success is proof that progressives are mastering the web with numbers that make the die-hard-red talk radio world green with envy.

"We're also one of the leading shows on XM satellite radio, but in politics the web is the future - the right just doesn't get that." said Young Turks founder and host Cenk Uygur, who lives in Los Angeles. "We are so proud of what we've built with The Young Turks and our audience is only growing as people increasingly turn to the Internet for news."

You're living in the past.. you aren't even on the field

:)


by Chinese Democracy on 11/21/2008 01:54:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Off the top of my head... (none / 0)
Don Imus, Michael Jackson, Ed Harvey, Mike Murphy, Jim Eason, Ira Blue, Owen Spann, Jerry Williams, Herb Jepko, Austin Culmer....

"...because stations were forced to offer balance"

NO they WEREN'T. Stations had to offer an opportunity for public comment. PERIOD. NOT equal time.

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 07:25:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sigh.... (none / 0)
"Please forward this thread to New Mexico's Commander Koo Koo Bananas,"

If you're going to yap at heels, don't be surprised when you get kicked. Do you like poking at Hornets' nests with short sticks, too?

Arrrrghhh...

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 05:24:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yah. Right. (none / 0)

Perhaps you haven't noticed that whenever you DON'T shove your psychopathy in our faces, such as by lying or by spewing unprovoked insults or by manipulating the unwary, then I stick to the issues (although I most often simply don't reply to you in those instances because I find your point of view boring).  Whenever you behave respectfully, rather than in your usual demagogic mode, then I'll argue with you only on the issue at hand, if I'm interested enough in the topic to engage you at all.  Sure, your frequent inability to use logic consistently or accurately is somewhat frustrating, but  I don't think of that as a character defect.

However, I'm more than willing to shove your behavior back down your throat anytime you violate the rules of decorum.

Sorry, but I just don't tolerate demagoguery very well.  (Well, to be honest, you're right.  I'm actually NOT sorry.)

by EveningStarNM on 11/21/2008 01:02:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
ken troll (none / 0)

Your source of information limbaugh is an obnoxious turd. Copying his demeanor isnt in your best interest.

See I can be nice..I gave you advice.


by Chinese Democracy on 11/21/2008 03:27:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Whatever (none / 0)

Now you're just getting boring again.

by EveningStarNM on 11/22/2008 02:35:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The crux (none / 0)
That's the thing! NO ONE would be imposing ANYTHING. No one would make Fox or Clear Channel change their editorial stance, that is the FALSE issue opponents of the FD use as a sidetrack.

The airwaves are not owned by companies - they are owned by the people of the U.S. and the companies who lease these airwaves (at WAY too low a price) have OBLIGATIONS to the communities they serve - an outlet for free speech by citizens being one of them.

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 12:54:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The honest answer (none / 0)
We DON'T.

We want them to be TRUTHFUL. Why is that so much to ask?

(Congress CAN abridge speech, btw - try yelling "MOVIE!" in a crowded fire house)

The Fairness Doctrine IN NO WAY hinders Rush, Fox, or ANYONE ELSE. ALL it does is keep an avenue open for those very opposing points of view you're worried about protecting.

Let me say it louder - THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE WOULD NOT AFFECT RUSH LIMBAUGH IN ANY WAY. Nor the Fox Network. Individual stations OWNED by Fox may have to set aside 5 minutes here and there if their Station Managers do an on air editorial, but THAT IS ALL.

...media conglomerate giants are a different subject with different problems...

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 03:41:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You lost me somewhere (none / 0)
That went from "Why do Liberals want to hamper broadcaster? Why fret over opposing POV's" to "We DON'T want to hamper any broadcasters" to "forcing MSNBC to broadcast 30 minutes of Rush Limbaugh every night."

I feel a disconnect somewhere.

Oh, and Dan Rather was correct in his facts - that part gets overlooked a lot...

Eason Jordan - are you referring to his comments (truthful) about journalists being targeted or the NY Times piece, The News We Kept To Ourselves? To me, the second one should have been reason to clean house at CNN. Hiding the truth is almost worse than lying.

But the Fairness Doctrine wouldn't have applied in any of these cases.

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 05:05:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hence my rating of "unproductive". (none / 0)
This is one of those moments when it becomes apparent that you're talking to the wall (and with Ken, there seems to be a lot of those).

by Spencer on 11/20/2008 05:17:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Will it be a HUGE issue? I think NOT (none / 0)

Fairness Doctrine Fears: A Fake Right Wing Firestorm

"When things are looking up for them, it's no big bother to tune in to some radio talk at the lunatic fringe end of the right wing radio dial and hear about the battle between ideological opposites depicted in eliminationist terms. Yes, not as "loyal opposition" or "fervent debate" or even the more zesty talk of "permanent Republican majorities." No, no. When things are going well for purveyors of right wing radio, you're bound to hear chatter of how everyone left of the right is some sort of treasonous, anti-American criminal. And you know what they do with those, right?

You hear this same talk even when times are tough on the loony fringe -- but it comes with the added bonus of whinging terror as they assume that their own D&D-style revenge fantasies will soon be visited upon them.

And so, now, right wing radio is all a flutter with the notion that the Obama White House, working in combination with Nancy Pelosi and some magical Che Guevara tee-shirts, are set to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine and effectively muzzle the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Savages and all the lesser lights that populate that ever-declining medium known as terrestrial radio"


by Chinese Democracy on 11/21/2008 01:43:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
KKKenTX here is the REAL important takeaway (none / 0)
from Tiny's article

 "conservatives were all a-leap with terror over the wholly hallucinatory notion that President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress were going to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The facts are these: Obama's against its reimplementation, Democratic lawmakers are mystified over the concern, and given the chance as recently as last year to put the Doctrine back in place, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives shot the idea down, with Democratic members voting against it in large numbers."


by Chinese Democracy on 11/21/2008 03:46:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right wing talk radio (none / 0)
threw everything they had at Obama for months 24/7 coast to coast. It didnt do a damn bit of good.

Right wing radio has been proven inefectual.In fact all the bull shit they tossed seemed to have HELPED Obama.

There is no reason to try to " silence" them

Obama used the NET  to his advantage .. from getting 500 million dollars to organizing a huge grass roots movement.

The net is where the action is and thats the way its going to be in the future..

Right wing talk radio preaches to the choir they obviously dont garner any converts.

The proof is in the last 2 elections


by Chinese Democracy on 11/21/2008 10:53:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't understand. (none / 0)

You claim that repealing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 "will create jobs and break up the nonsense monopolies".

How?

While I agree that breaking up the monopolies is a good thing, could you give us at least a couple of sentences to explain your argument that repealing that law would accomplish that end?

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 11:35:54 AM EST

Maybe I can help... (none / 0)
I think "revising" would be better than "repealing" because there were some GOOD things in the act - increased requirements for TTY and aids for the disabled, etc. - that's one of the troubles with omnibus bills, and why such bills are presented in this fashion. Gotta vote for the bad if you want the good.

I'm not sure how many jobs would be created, automation and syndication has more to do with that aspect than any rule changes do, and that (some call it) is progress.

The VILE part of the act was in allowing media companies to own more than one outlet in a market area. Again, this road to hell was paved with good intentions but it went too far. It used to be that one company could only own a limited part of a market - now, the same company can own all the radio stations, the newspaper, AND a couple of the TV stations which cover a given area. This gives too much power of control over information in too few hands.

That part of the act NEEDS revision.

Side note: Look around at our economic woes today...I've long held the belief that the country has been on a thirty year orgy of Mergemania and now the chickens have come home to roost. Used to be that if 20th Century Fox failed, then it affected one company and a few suppliers. - NOW, if FOX goes under, all their subsidiary holdings go under as well - newspapers, radio stations, tv stations, My Page, etc. - EVERYTHING goes.

What used to cause a small ripple now causes a tsunami.

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 12:45:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Right (none / 0)
So shouldn't there be more regulations to bust up trusts/monopolies/oligarchi es?

Haven't we learned that lesson, i.e. that if it's too big to fail it's also too big to exist in it's current form? Besides, these giant groups destroy competition which is supposed to be a big selling point of the "free market".

by Tom Hanc on 11/20/2008 04:07:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Exactly (none / 0)

With TV going digital and more wireless bandwith options available, dropping the internet music fees to what they were or something reasonable for the artists, gives people more chances to do their own thing.

Allowing radio to start over again from the ground up means more program directors, more on air talent, more producers, more revenue from FCC fines (inevitably), and more voices out there to change this country.

Right now Clear Channel and their like are killing independent thought and radio in this country.

 

by calturner on 11/20/2008 05:09:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Um...no....it doesn't. (none / 0)
Only talking over-the-air radio, here. Internet is a different beast.

Sadly, there would NOT be a lot of openings for air talent. That part isn't really a problem of one company owning too many stations.

Even if there were no Clear Channel, there are a whole shitload of syndicators out there willing to give stations their feed for ad time only and radio being a business, Station Managers and Owners will opt for a completely automated service over employee problems any day.

One of the main reasons I got OUT of radio was because I didn't want to be a button pusher playing a preset selection of music generated by a computer in Minnesota guaranteed to keep housewives happily glued to their soft rock stations.

There would be a few jobs, but only a few.

First step is take away corporate "citizenship."

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 05:34:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Crap (none / 0)
Firefox keeps closing on me before I can finish this reply. I'll get back to it. Meanwhile, read FCC 07-218 and find out why it's NOT new and it's nothing more than asking broadcasters to live up to the promises they make when they are granted a license. It is NOT an attack on talk radio - Conservative or otherwise.

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 08:07:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
How would that happen? (none / 0)
Is someone proposing that?  Did that happen under the old Fairness Doctrine?  The record is skipping, and it has to be getting boring even for you at this point.

by Spencer on 11/20/2008 08:56:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not buying it (none / 0)
Theres plenty of options for everyone. Before passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, a company could not own more than 40 radio stations in the entire country.

Theres opportunity there and room to adjust laws to make sure that broadcasters arent just syndicating the country to death.

By starting smaller radio companies or sellign off parts of  existing ones theres an opportunity for small businesses to receive tax breaks for starting their own companies.

by calturner on 11/20/2008 11:47:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Revising and Repealing (none / 0)

I don't know when the last bad law was actually repealed.  "Revising" it is more likely.  But you're right: a really shitty law had some good stuff in it.

But I'm not sure how "revising" the law to eliminate the market monopolies we have now would work.  Clearly, we have companies that monopolize the information dissemination industry.  Some dominate certain segments of it nationally, some dominate in local markets.

But those monopolies have been specifically allowed by federal law.  Would it be fair to pass a law that suddenly made those monopolies illegal?&nb sp; I think it would be a very bad precedent, even though in this case I would welcome the outcome.

What's more, I'm not sure that the Supreme Court would accept such a sudden reversal of law.  Sure, the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts would seem to make those monopolies illegal if it wasn't for the fact that the Telecommunications Act, in Title II, Section 202 "Broadcast Ownership", eliminates the number of stations that radio and television broadcasters can own nationally and greatly expands the number that they can own in local markets.

Regarding your side note:  Note how Paulson is now forcing banks to merge by forcing them to take money that they sometimes don't want.  And since the banks are getting much of the money with no strings attached, they're using the money to buy other good banks.  Mergermania is a reality that now is creating yet more banks that are too big to fail.

When they do fail, we'll be in even deeper shit.

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 09:16:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oops. (none / 0)

That should read:

"...eliminates restrictions on the number of stations that radio and television broadcasters can own nationally..."

by EveningStarNM on 11/20/2008 09:19:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The dangers of the fairness doctine (none / 0)
Anyone recall the phrase "tobacco strategy,"?  For years on end the goal was not to decry that there was not any evidence stating that smoking was hazardous, the battlecry was to keep the *debate* alive. Less than a half dozen scientists (on Phillip Morris' payroll, no less) were given equal airtime to the VAST majority of scientists who were presenting information accurately from non-industry funded studies. 4 or so scientists versus EVERYONE else in the scientific community... yet they got equal airtime due to the fairness doctrine. How many lives were lost due to this? Most smokers start because of a connection with another smoker who they see as hip, cool, etc... someone they know, far more often than depiction in television or movies. The system works like some evil phone tree, how many lives were lost in relation to this is impossible to count, but cannot be denied. There are many advantages to the fairness doctrine, I don't deny that... however there is also at least ONE major drawback. This is also a similar strategy that was utilized to combat the march of information on global warming... imagine how badly that would have gone had the fairness doctrine been in full swing? Just some thoughts.
-Tyger

by TygerTurtle on 11/20/2008 07:39:55 PM EST

Sorry, Tyger (none / 0)
"...yet they got equal airtime due to the fairness doctrine."

Blatantly untrue.

by MedfordTim on 11/20/2008 08:11:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is all a waste of time... (none / 0)

None of it's fair really. And unfortunately most people don't listen to the radio for fairness. They listen to the radio (or watch TV, or specific internet sites) to reinforce their own views. That's why KenTx listens to Rush so devoutly and expunges his virtues here for all of us to cringe.

And the advertisers that buy on these stations don't buy to be fair, they buy to appeal to and reach those same people, with the same interests and opinions.

So in the end what you get is angry right-wing radio, and angry left-wing radio, and things like NPR in the middle which tries to be in the middle, but can't really ever get passed the individual biases of its contributors.

The airwaves, radio, TV, and what-have-you belong to us. And as long as we are the patrons of a particular station, we give it our stamp of approval, and urge it to continue along its course...

 

... It's only as fair as the individual chooses to make his life, perspective, and view of the world. Personally, as of late, I choose neither, because no one does a good enough job of really telling it like it is. Everyone has some vested interest, some angle. It's always a let-down. 

 

The airwaves are supposed to be ours. Yet these days, they belong more to platforms, advertisers, and machines... they grow bigger than even we want them to be... and in the end, we become part of them. So beware.

"Objectivity lies not in balance, but in truth. And truth is more often than not unbalanced - slanted in favor of right, and against wrong." -Ed

by Ed on 11/21/2008 03:17:40 AM EST

radio personalities (none / 0)

Just a note that Media Matters has been emailing action alerts regarding various radio personalities. Info is here.

I think targeting the advertisers is a good thing. Hit them in the pocketbook. Right now, with the recession, they might listen to people's complaints.

by desertpear on 11/21/2008 04:02:45 PM EST

That could be because radio is a dying medium (none / 0)
More and more people turn to the net for news.. information etc.  Less and less people listen to the radio.


by Chinese Democracy on 11/21/2008 10:55:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good lord (none / 0)

You really believe this.

"So were the tubes and internets responsible for Obama's victory? I think it was more likely the global economic meltdown 60 days prior to the election."

Just like Foley was responsible for 06. 

Obama winning was a team effort and let me show you the captain of the team.

Democrat Hero 

Then there were the Republican Congressmen who blindly followed him to the end of their own careers.

Then there was Rush and the rest of the Neo Con apologists that told their aging, out of touch, AM dial audience was nothing to worry about because we still represent America. Yes, you KenTX are included in that group.

There are millions out there who would love to thank you and the rest of the Neo con party for making all this possible but I don't think they realize what really happened. 

by z1p101 on 11/23/2008 09:03:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
As a true (none / 0)

American

I will vote for the opposition until I see what I like.

Simple as that.

That is how things work in America and Obama better understand that.

Bush and the rest of the Republicans forgot that and that is why they are being routed out of power right now.

That is what you need to understand and that is what that old fool on the AM dial does not explain to you.

Open your eyes, if you are actually semi educated this whole process is simple. 

by z1p101 on 11/23/2008 10:17:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You do that (none / 0)
can't wait.

by z1p101 on 11/24/2008 03:27:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Too easy (none / 0)
Early warning signs? Someone saw Bush's third term coming months ago.

by Twba on 11/23/2008 10:34:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Screw the Fairness Doctrine | 52 comments (52 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: