Fairness doctrine sounds like a violation of Amendment #1

I have a better idea, why don't progressives get some better programs that people actually want to hear?

crazy idea I know...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

i think it's a mistake to believe that only conservatives listen to conservative radio. i think i'm somewhat progressive and i listen to a fair amount of the conservative pundits mostly for the entertainment value and not because i necessarily agree with the hosts.

there's almost nothing funnier than listening to a mark levin rant. he cracks me up every time as does sean hannity's simpleminded flag-waving antics. freedom concert? lol. on the other hand, i find rush's egocentric self-agrandising offputing and boring. almost every comment that he makes is prefaced by 'i told you years ago...' it gets old pretty darn fast.

if it's the case that a fair amount of progressives listen to them too for their entertainment value, then i can understand why their rating are so high.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka waaaah waaaaah. Could it be that liberal talk radio doesn't generate any ratings/interest? Let's just cry to the government. I love it when people talk about the "Fairness" Doctrine. Source: Think Backwards

I think the report is fairly self-explanatory in regards to the arguments you are making. As it states:

quote:

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem.

And why do they fail to explain the problem? Because:

quote:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. […] Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

IOW, the argument rests upon the idea of the radio market being completely gobbled up by a small handful of corporate conglomerates.

I would think it would be in everyone's interests to have more diversity of market ownership, would it not? Or do you feel that it's ultimately better for everyone to have a given market owned by a select few who've gobbled up everything else underneath and therefore control everything we should hear?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange there's almost nothing funnier than listening to a mark levin rant. he cracks me up every time as does sean hannity's simpleminded flag-waving antics. freedom concert? lol. on the other hand, i find rush's egocentric self-agrandising offputing and boring. almost every comment that he makes is prefaced by 'i told you years ago...' it gets old pretty darn fast.

You are a great American!

I actually think Rush is the funnier out of them all, but Neal Bortz is my favorite. Hannity gets on my nerves a lot of times, not because I think he is wrong, but because I hate the way he approaches things.

Also Shakka,

Well you know why Air America went bankrupt, because they still talk about how Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004. It gets pretty annoyin.h

___________________
Vernato

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I think the report is fairly self-explanatory in regards to the arguments you are making. As it states: And why do they fail to explain the problem? Because: IOW, the argument rests upon the idea of the radio market being completely gobbled up by a small handful of corporate conglomerates. I would think it would be in everyone's interests to have more diversity of market ownership, would it not? Or do you feel that it's ultimately better for everyone to have a given market owned by a select few who've gobbled up everything else underneath and therefore control everything we should hear?

So you support a "fairness doctrine?" I believe in a free market. Barriers to entry are not that high. It's just that nobody gives a shit about left-wing commentary on the radio. It shows up in the ratings. Kapedan is right. There is only so much "Bush stole the election 7 years ago blah blah blah" that any sane person can listen to before being compelled to turn the dial, even if it's to listen to some blowhard like Rush.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So you support a "fairness doctrine?" I believe in a free market. Barriers to entry are not that high. It's just that nobody gives a shit about left-wing commentary on the radio. It shows up in the ratings. Kapedan is right. There is only so much "Bush stole the election 7 years ago blah blah blah" that any sane person can listen to before being compelled to turn the dial, even if it's to listen to some blowhard like Rush.

Having to consider both sides of an argument is not incompatible with the free market you like so much. Responsible commentary demands the considering of opposing views. You have to remember information has consequences. Considering these people are distributing information that is critical in decision making they should consider both sides of an argument. Radio, TV, newspapers, etc.. should always consider their role as sources of information when developing their programming/coverage. The 'fairness doctrine' is nothing more than responsible journalism.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So you support a "fairness doctrine?" I believe in a free market. Barriers to entry are not that high. It's just that nobody gives a shit about left-wing commentary on the radio. It shows up in the ratings. I do support the Fairness Doctrine as it was originally written in law, and not on the relaxation of certain provisions. Certain items in the report are worth mentioning. For example, the Fairness Doctrine itself was never formally repealed. Rather, certain regulations were loosened by the FCC and were upheld by a Circuit Court (though not by the Supreme Court, though I'd concede with today's SCOTUS members it would likely have the same result as that of the Circuit Court). There's a good possibility that the FCC could merely enforce those rules again (like if a Democratic President comes in and appoints new FCC regulators). I'll stop ripping the argument and let it speak for itself from here: [QUOTE]Moreover, the original Communications Act of 1934 still authorizes the FCC to require “reasonable access to or to permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time” by a legally qualifi ed candidate for federal elective offi ce, and equal opportunities must be afforded all other candidates for that offi ce.13 These obligations come from the same set of concerns from which the Fairness Doctrine arose. And Section 315 of the Communications Act still requires commercial broadcasters “to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of confl icting views of issues of public importance.”14 http://www.americanprogress.org/iss.../talk_radio.pdf p. 6

Furthermore:

quote:

Thus, the public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper. More important, the Fairness Doctrine was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues. The Fairness Doctrine was most effective as part of a regulatory structure that limited license terms to three years, subjected broadcasters to license challenges through comparative hearings, required notice to the local community that licenses were going to expire, and empowered the local community through a process of interviewing a variety of local leaders. Added to this regulatory structure was the cooperation of the broadcast industry through the National Association of Broadcasters Code of Conduct.15

I say all this to dispel the notion that supporting the doctrine entails some sort of repeal. It's merely enforcing that which is already a law, but has been loosened up somewhat.

And in regards to the listening viewership of talk radio, the report states:

quote:

The second argument put forth to explain the gap between conservative and progressive talk is that station owners are merely providing the programming that the market forces demand. From this perspective, talk radio audiences are just more conservative and are more likely to listen to conservative hosts. This argument is misleading on numerous fronts. Although talk radio audiences tend to be more male, middle-aged, and conservative, research by Pew indicates that this audience is not monolithic— 43 percent of regular talk radio listeners identify as conservative, while 23 percent identify as liberal and 30 percent as moderate. 16 The ideological breakdown of the country as a whole during this same period was very similar—36 percent conservative, 21 percent liberal, and 35 percent moderate. It is diffi cult to argue that the existing audience for talk radio is only interested in hearing one side of public debates given the diversity of the existing and potential audience. More importantly, even in markets where progressive talk is considered a success by the industry standards of ratings and revenue, licensees will often broadcast conservative talk on three or four stations compared to one station for progressive talk. For example, in Portland, OR, where progressive talk on KPOJ AM 620 competes effectively with conservative talk on KEX AM 1190, station owners also broadcast conservative talk on KXL AM 750 and KPAM AM 860. Although there is a clear demand and proven success of progressive talk in this market, station owners still elect to stack the airwaves with one-sided broadcasting. As our data shows, the norm under the existing market structure is for radio station licensees to broadcast only conservative talk, a pattern that holds true for more than 90 percent of the stations examined (236 stations out of 257). In Ohio, for example, there are 10 radio markets. In eight of those markets, there is not a single hour of progressive talk. In the two markets that do broadcast a total of six hours of progressive talk (Al Sharpton on two urban talk stations), those hours compete against 52 hours of conservative talk. Clear Channel Communications, the ownership group that has committed the largest number of stations to the progressive format, recently cancelled the only three progressive talk stations in the state of Ohio. When 91 percent of the talk radio programming broadcast each weekday is solely conservative—despite a diversity of opinions among radio audiences and the proven success of progressive shows—the market solution has clearly failed to meet audience demand. Even greater deregulation and consolidation of radio station ownership is therefore not likely to meet audience desires or serve the public interest in any meaningful way. p.7

More is explained in detail in the report. Have you read it yet? What parts do you agree or disagree with and why? They also address the "barriers of entry" you mention:

quote:

Our view is that the imbalance in talk radio programming today is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. 8 regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast regulation resulting from pro-forma licensing policies,17 longer license terms (to eight years from three years previously),18 the elimination of clear public interest requirements such as local public affairs programming,19 and the relaxation of ownership rules, including the requirement of local participation in management. ....Large, non-local owners aired syndicated programming on a wider scale across their national holdings. Advertising on local stations was marketed and sold by national fi rms, undermining the ability of local owners to compete. Many sold their stations. The number of locally-owned, minority-owned, and female-owned stations was constrained— and the very different programming decisions these owners make were less visible in the market. In short, the removal of ownership limits created artifi cial economies of scale for syndicated programming (dominated by conservative talk). Because of the size of corporate radio holdings, this business model was profi table even if localism declined and local tastes and needs were not suitably matched. At the same time, the long-standing principles of public service that have always come with a free license to use the public airwaves for broadcast radio were in decline. These principles and the regulations they supported were designed to foster localism and a station owner’s commitment to local public service. Emblematic of this commitment was not just the shorter license- renewal requirement of three years but also the renewal process itself. License renewal previously required local engagement with the community— the solicitation of local feedback on programming and accountable public reporting of this input so that the FCC could determine if the broadcaster was upholding its public interest responsibilities. Now licenses are renewed by “postcard,” a stamp in the corner of a scrap of paper now substitutes for all of the local interaction, very little of which is still required by law. Without these policies fostering local responsiveness, the move toward lowest common denominator syndicated programming was facilitated. All of these factors matter tremendously, and they have combined to produce the current state of affairs in the marketplace. p.8

quote:

Kapedan is right. There is only so much "Bush stole the election 7 years ago blah blah blah" that any sane person can listen to before being compelled to turn the dial, even if it's to listen to some blowhard like Rush.

Please try not to lecture me on sane. Listening to Hannity/Savage/Limbaugh/Levin/Church/insert-fascist-Wingnut-talkshowhost here is anything but sane. It's amazing the dichotomy of what's considered "sane" in Wingnut land - bombing the fuck out of anything that moves in the Middle East because they deserve it, and should thusly be converted to Christianity (thanks Ann), bombing and destroying cities and killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent civilians because the Muslim world would be grateful for yet another attack by Bush on another country in the Middle East (i.e. Iran) is the running mantra of these talk show Conservative nutbags who pitch up a lovefest for influential certifiable nuts like Podhoretz:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/c...e.html?id=10882

and is considered "sane" by their standards. Yet questioning the sanity of this Administration and yes, sometimes questioning how they obtained their power in a suspicious recount in Florida (to which some 50% or so voters in the '04 election felt that recount was suspicious as well), as well as inconsistencies in the '04 election brought up were oh so strangely the result of ALL consistencies helped the Republican side.

Yep, a very strange world indeed to hear over the airwaves.

Incidentally, I noticed how that ThinkProgress post has successfully blown up into almost 3,000 posts. You boys did a lovely troll bomb on that one. Congrats all around.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

This isn't about giving the left more of a platform to deliver their own message, it's about them trying to limit free speech and the opposing position that is prevalent on talk radio. Sorry, but it's about whiners trying to get the government to step in and choke off the voice of their opposition when they have realized they are powerless to do so. Air America didn't fail because of some vast right-wing conspiracy. It failed because it sucked, as with just about any and all failing enterprises. There is nothing "fair" about the Fairness Doctrine. It is complete and utter horse shit.

The opportunity for opposing views does not require government intervention. It requires an audience that demands it. Apparently that audience is not very large in the realm of talk radio, hence the playing field that exists today. If you listen to any "right-wing" talk radio host, they quite welcome the competition for the explicit purpose that they know that the opposition will whine and pull out the Fairness Doctrine card every time they fail to generate enough of an audience to maintain their radio slot. Boortz has predicted this for over a year now. It's quite ironic really.

Furthermore, there is no real restriction on having people with opposing views of the talk show hosts from calling in and expressing them and engaging the hosts in healthy debate, so I don't really see why it's a relavent argument to bring up in the first place. I listen to plenty of talk radio and I hear plenty of opposing views. It's not always some right-wing lovefest that the left seems to portray it to be.

Another interesting point made today is that the author of the Think Progress article is none other than John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff. Nice timing. Perhaps it's a Hillary conspiracy.

right-wing radio (at least here in australia) is more popular simply because it is over-simplified and geared towards the lowest common denominator. progressive (or "liberal" if you wanna mis-use that term yet again you americans, sheesh) programs are meatier and harder to grasp for the general populace.

edit: oh, and serious LOL at people using the term "left" in here. america's parties are centre right, oh and centre right!

___________________

Government has not right to direct the programming of the media. The market should decide. Liberals dominate the TV airwaves, who cares?