Fairness doctrine demise cause early Radio downturn...
> What it would do is create an environment where more
> different folks would be in the position of making these
> decisions. That does provide greater opportunities to try
> something new -- and remember that new doesn't always mean
> obscure. Give more folks the opportunity to own radio
> stations, and yeah, most of them will run the same standard
> formats. But a few will try something different -- and
> while most of those experiments will stink to high heaven, a
> few will be interesting and successful enough to foster some
> change in the industry.
>
> Part of what makes today's commercial radio relatively dull
> is the lack of experimentation...
Your thoughts are very much on target Tom....but due to the lack of few original ideas....and the current climate to add add add but keep everything the same has been basically the way radio is being forced into an early twlight.....
I can't remember the quote..but the guy who invented the cell phone had a great take (and others have stolen/borrowed his thoughts) on why we get new innovations...when you hate something one will basically do anything to get around that bad thing....in his case it was the cell phone to escape the phone company....with radio, we have all the new "ad-hoc" or "on-demand" options like mp3 players...podcasting...etc....the current radio market, including talk is numbing...thats why we all all these wonderful innovations..the original idea wasn't serving the people sufficiently..
The whole effort to raze and destroy the fairness doctrine was simply a way to open the door for more profit at the cost of quality and for those who had a political interest to allow them to move forward with a new agenda.
Borrowing some useful quotes/info from Steve Kendall's and Joe Conason's book on media consolidation, the fairness doctrine, and the current media quagmire will help here i think...to explain the "meat" of why the fairness doctrine existed.
These are great quotes about the 1969 Red Lion case....from the Supreme Court and the FCC:
It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.
A decade later the United States Supreme Court upheld the doctrine’s constitutionality in Red Lion Broadcast-ing Co. v. FCC (1969), foreshadowing a decade in which the FCC would view the Fairness Doctrine as a guiding principle, calling it “the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest—the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license” (FCC Fairness Report, 1974).
Those are awesome quotes supporting why the Doctrine was of great value.
If one is careful about looking back for the reasons....then one should know that the Fairness Doctrine never said that each show had to be be internally balanced. It also didn't force equal time...that is...for opposing points of view. And it never required the station balance the programming to 50/50.
Steve Rendall makes a valid point as well about Rush. Rush Limbaugh has claimed many times that the Fairness Doctrine was the only thing between conservative talkshow hosts and controlling the air.
This sample from (The Way Things Arent, 1995) helps as well:
In fact, not one Fairness Doctrine decision issued by the FCC had ever concerned itself with talkshows. Indeed, the talkshow format was born and flourished while the doctrine was in operation. Before the doctrine was repealed, right-wing hosts frequently dominated talkshow schedules, even in liberal cities, but none was ever muzzled. The Fairness Doctrine simply prohibited stations from broadcasting from a single perspective, day after day, without presenting opposing views.
So in a nutshell, losing the Fairness doctrine was not a effort in creating 50/50 balance...but instead it was the beginning of the death of originality in radio.
With the death of originally, people began looking elsewhere..now it may be very much too late.....a shame...
Tongue in cheek....now we also have Fox...and thats reason enough to bring back the Fairness doctrine....
