ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

[joshzz]

I presented to the FCC, the solution to the Fairness Doctrine.

The answer is quite simple and will solve what many view as a problem.
Instead of forcing broadcasters to change their behavior, offer incentives for broadcasters or would be station owners to acquire stations and then offer programming that allows for fair discourse of the issues.

For instance, our government should offer low interest loans for anyone interested in buying a radio station in a top 200 market, that agrees to broadcast a "Both Sides of the Issues" Talk Format for the length of the loan plus additional years as determined.

The station owner agrees to hire two hosts for each daypart program. Hosts must generally represent opposing sides of the issues .. .example one is a conservative and the other liberal.

I believe this type of programming will usurp in popularity the fare offered currently.. Debate is what made this country great... People need to decide for themselves where they stand.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Josh: I share your view of how it would be nice for radio to operate.... but I have little or no confidence that government CAN create objective rules and guidelines to regulate this scheme.

How conservative is the correct calibration for the conservative host?

How liberal is the correct calibration for the liberal host?

This is not a one dimensional world. Who becomes the gatekeeper for issues that are not parallel to the tug-of-war rope stretched between the conservative and the liberal.

If the license holder who now operates one of these stations financed with a government sponsored loan hires a conservative host that is not satisfactory to an organized collection of conservatives in your community, what will be their procedure to protest and require that are more suitable conservative host be hired?

Ditto for disagreement over the choice of a liberal host.

It has become the practice in our land for indigent persons accused of crime to be provided with government financed legal counsel. If there is a protest group in your community that does not agree with the hosts a licensee hires to represent conservative and liberal... will there be government funding for indigent groups who wish to protest but cannot hire a lawyer to represent them?

When we are are asking school teachers to take unpaid vacation to balance budgets, do you really thing you can find legislators who will craft and support a bill that causes the FCC to take on the task of creating a mechanism to administer the balance of talk radio?

What you describe is exactly what we used to expect broadcasters to do. Operate in the PUBLIC INTEREST and to play nice while doing it. Broadcasters have made it abundantly clear through their lobby groups what you are proposing is at the very, very bottom of their list of things they want as part of their world.

Give us an incentive as to what we can say to broadcasters to convince they they want a plan like you describe.

 

[talk chick]

Two problems with that idea:

First, many hosts already include guests and callers who represent the other side. (I know I do)

Second, these days, stations can barely afford to have the on-air staff they have, which is why so much syndication is used to fill up the day. Having two hosts per daypart, even if only in morning and afternoon drive, gets expensive in a hurry. And what happens with the rest of the day? How can you insure that each show will feature both ends of the political spectrum?

And Goat Rodeo Cowboy is correct - who determines how far left or right each host is?

Heidi Harris
KDWN

 

[Holland Cooke]

As a practical matter, it's moot.

“The Fairness Doctrine is dead.”
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, speaking at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show

This is the umpteenth time an FCC commissioner has said what the president has also said several times: The old Fairness Doctrine won’t be reinstated.

Predictably, this won’t deny radio righties what’s-become their favorite hobby horse.
(Ever notice how the-people-most-concerned-about-this, and localism, are syndicated hosts?)

As a practical matter, a Fairness Doctrine is too late, because the Internet has enabled anyone to have a voice, unlike way-back-when broadcasters and publishers were opinion gatekeepers. Bloggers, podcasters, and other self-publishers now enjoy worldwide reach, enabled by the software that came pre-installed on even the least expensive laptops. The “media stations” Michael Harrison speaks of require no permission.

You are the network.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

 

[radiocph]

This is starting to remind me of the old "Madalyn Murray O'Hair wants to end all religious broadcasting" letters the FCC used to get, even years after she had passed away....

 

[wyattcox]

This is starting to remind me of the old "Madalyn Murray O'Hair wants to end all religious broadcasting" letters the FCC used to get, even years after she had passed away....

...you mean, she isn't...even from her non-existent beyond????

 

[in3media_be1]

Some posts from this thread have been moved to Take It Outside


http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=161441.msg1376999#msg1376999

 

[ctkatz]

Re: As a practical matter, it's moot.

“The Fairness Doctrine is dead.”
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, speaking at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show

This is the umpteenth time an FCC commissioner has said what the president has also said several times: The old Fairness Doctrine won’t be reinstated.

Predictably, this won’t deny radio righties what’s-become their favorite hobby horse.
(Ever notice how the-people-most-concerned-about-this, and localism, are syndicated hosts?)

As a practical matter, a Fairness Doctrine is too late, because the Internet has enabled anyone to have a voice, unlike way-back-when broadcasters and publishers were opinion gatekeepers. Bloggers, podcasters, and other self-publishers now enjoy worldwide reach, enabled by the software that came pre-installed on even the least expensive laptops. The “media stations” Michael Harrison speaks of require no permission.

You are the network.

HC
www.HollandCooke.com

i am prefacing the following comment by stating first i am playing devil's advocate.

sure, we are our own network. and sure most of us have the ability to choose what we listen to. but what about those of us who don't have any way to get to the internet to get the things we do want to listen to? there are some markets that don't have a progressive station or even a progressive show but plenty of conservative talk. what about those people? shouldn't markets with 2 or 3 conservative stations carry a progressive station as well?

 

[MikefromDelaware]

but what about those of us who don't have any way to get to the internet to get the things we do want to listen to? there are some markets that don't have a progressive station or even a progressive show but plenty of conservative talk. what about those people? shouldn't markets with 2 or 3 conservative stations carry a progressive station as well?/color]

Let's take your approach, but rather than make it with talk radio make it with music. My dad likes Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Woody Herman, and Kate Smith, etc. There aren't any stations in many markets, including mine, that plays those artists at all. Why, because there aren't enough listeners who like that music today. Of those who do, most are well past that magic demo 6-49 the advertisers want. So if a market has a radio station that plays that sort of music, it probably is a non-comm college, non-comm NPR station. The law of supply and demand. A market may have 2 or 3 stations airing very similar rock music, so why shouldn't the FCC have a Fairness Doctrine for music also? Why should those of us who like Classical Music, Big Band Music, Jazz, Cowboy Western Music - Think Roy Rogers Son of the Pioneers, Real Oldies from the 50's and early 60's, Bag Pipes, Gregorian Chants, Polkas, Irish Folk Tunes, and German Martial Music have to pay money to a non-comm to hear what we like? We deserve a Fairness Doctrine too. Of course that's not realistic. Radio is a business and all those forms of music are no longer viable by themselves to be a profitable format, but can make it on a non-comm where the listeners help pay the price to air it.

So why should talk radio be different? It shouldn't. There probably are radio markets where lib talk sells better than conserv talk (apparently not many). The reason a market might have 2-3 conserv talkers and no lib talkers is the owners of those stations don't believe they can make a living airing lib talk. Just as those 3 rock stations fight for the same listeners rather than play Glenn Miller, because they don't believe they can make a living airing music of the 1940's. So just as I have to do to hear Jazz and Classical Music in my radio market, I tune into WRTI, our local NPR non-comm that brings Philly/Wilmington/South Jersey a great format of Classical Music by day and Jazz at night. So anyone who wants libs talk and lib oriented programming can tune into NPR news and info/talk programming via your local NPR station or online at www.npr.org.

Bottomline to my point is, no the government should not force any radio station to air lib talk or conserv talk any more than the government should not force any radio station to air Gregorian Chants or Rap Music. Let the market decide, what is no longer commercially viable then migrates to a non-comm or NPR station, or to online radio.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Bottomline to my point is, no the government should not force any radio station to air lib talk or conserv talk any more than the government should not force any radio station to air Gregorian Chants or Rap Music. Let the market decide, what is no longer commercially viable then migrates to a non-comm or NPR station, or to online radio.

This thread and the NEWS/TALK forum are probably the most fragile discussion in the entirety of Radio-Info today. Part of this thread has already been dispatched to TIO so let's see what we can do here while avoiding the good-guy/bad-guy shouting matches.

Mike, there is what we used to call "the ultimate ridiculous conclusion" of what you propose, if we don't find some way to mitigate it in a way that is acceptable to the American concept of civilization and ethics. And frankly, there is no acceptable philosophy acceptable to the American people if it does not include this "marketplace element" that is at the heart of your statement. We want the market place to work.

We have "water rights laws" and "riparian rights laws" in this country because in the frontier days and in the wild, wild west days we found that the pure marketplace management of water ownership had it's limitations.

During the industrialization of America in the 19th century we found out that unregulated railroads and oil were unable to implement the pure marketplace management in what Americans considered a humane way.

I'll skip over a number of other examples of where the American people came face-to-face with the "pure marketplace" and the American people blinked.

In your post it seems to have put ALL the responsibility for meeting the broadcast needs of the minority of our citizens on NPR. And how in NPR reacting to this burden we have placed on them? They are having some internal struggles. It appears to me that there are two feuding "super powers" within the NPR family: We could with a snarl refer to them as the elitists who want the entire day filled with classical music presented in a classical manner, and the elitists who want a dignified news coverage from the centrist or center-left point of view. Thus the same market place that is putting silo walls around what commercial broadcasters are willing and able to present as programming also hammers on NPR. The marketplace of those who have the extra funds to finance NPR are now building these two silos which NPR can no more ignore than commercial radio can ignore the ad agencies and their clients.

These trends will continue. On the surface they appear perfectly healthy applications of the market place, and maybe they are.

If it were only radio we could resume life and just forget this thread of discussion. But the market place is also impacting EVERY form of media out there. I have to assume at some future date.... 10 years? 30 years? 100 years from now? ....at some future date when the flow of information becomes choked the way water was in the Western States when someone bought the stream and dammed it up and said "Pay me or your cattle die of thirst!" or when the Midwestern grain farmers were told by the railroad: "Pay me or your grain rots in the field!" ... at some future date it is possible we will blink and say: "When it comes to the free flow of information, we honor the market place, but with some limitations."

 

[ctkatz]

Bottomline to my point is, no the government should not force any radio station to air lib talk or conserv talk any more than the government should not force any radio station to air Gregorian Chants or Rap Music. Let the market decide, what is no longer commercially viable then migrates to a non-comm or NPR station, or to online radio.

i have heard that line used too often before, and generally the reason it gets trotted out time and time again is because the person who is using it normally can't come up with a logical reason to defend their position.

the one major major flaw in this argument is this: the market decides, but the provider doesn't care and continues to supply even though thre is no demand. not going into any idealogical debates here but these are just the instances that i know of. how many years was fox news on the air before it ever turned a profit? how many years was shawn hannity on fox before his show turned a profit? why is glenn beck still on television despite the massive sponsorship pullout?

i would counter your argument with this: in some markets there is a market for progressive talk. maybe not a station. but at least a show. maybe not a weekday every day offering. but at least for a day. some markets don't even have that. and probably in those markets there is an oversaturation of the market with conservative talk. tell me, does it really make much sense for there to be 3, 4, or maybe 5 conservative stations in a market with not even one hour of a progressive outlet where there is a demand? this is the problem that needs to be addressed. what to do when there is a market for progressive talk, but the provider refuses to hear the demands of the consumers for an outlet. the fairness doctrine is not the answer.

let me repeat that. the fairness doctrine is NOT the answer. and you don't hear progressive talk hosts proposing that idea, but the callers because they don't understand the details.

i think the best answer to the problem of having both sides heard is not the fairness doctrine but a return of restrictions of station ownership, namely how many stations these big radio corporations can own in one market. that would likely open up some frequencies to other station owners who would be more likely to give the format a shot.

 

[joshzz]

ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Now, this is not the answer the progressives would like but at least it would give a better idea of the manipulation being used by some talk show host in entertaining & flagging various callers.

Under the FCC's guidance, each the producer representing each political talk host (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc) would have to log the callers as to whether they are calling to support the host or oppose the host. A tally would be taken on a daily basis and the total calls would be reported on-air the next day the program is broadcast. Reported to the listeners would be the total number of calls received, the total of those supporting the host on the issues and the total of those opposing. The program host would also be responsible for reporting the total number of calls that actually were allowed on air representing supporting and opposing positions.
That number would also need to be reported as a percentage. For instance, if Rush Limbaugh received 100 calls and only ten supported his position and those were the only calls he allowed on-air, then it would be reported as 90 calls were received opposing and out of those 0 were allowed on-air. The percentage of those representing opposing views that got on the air would be: 0% and those supporting would be 100%.
Maybe, it doesn't sound like a big deal to report such numbers, but Late Night TV, political analysts, etc., would have a field day with this data and it would absolutely take the wind out of Limbaugh's sails and others. While on the other hand people like Mihael Medved who allows opposing callers on-air would shine.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

Maybe, it doesn't sound like a big deal to report such numbers, but Late Night TV, political analysts, etc., would have a field day with this data and it would absolutely take the wind out of Limbaugh's sails and others. While on the other hand people like Mihael Medved who allows opposing callers on-air would shine.

....with this DATA.... Yeah, data!

There is an old, old saying among system analysts and computer programmers:

G. I. G. O. (Translation: Put garbage in. You get garbage out.

If we implemented this system, can you paint me a picture of how radio would be improved?

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Broadcast political talk is a bit different than broadcast music, and this is where my point in my previous post falls short on further reflection of this issue.

Whether someone likes the music of Glenn Miller, J.S.Bach, Led Zeppelin, Ice Tea, the Dixie Chicks, etc, won't affect, or shouldn't affect the political aspects of our nation, but if only the blow hards of the right wing or the left wing get an airing with the exclusion of the other side then our democracy could be affected in a very negative way. So even though I generally believe the market should decide, there could be a case made for where some real fair and balanced programming (not the Fox News version or the MSNBC version) should be required in some way for talk and commentary.

Even if a version of the Fairness Doctrine was reapplied, unless it was very specific on how much and when in the broadcast day the other sides views were presented, I could see a conservative oriented station airing their lib programming from midnight to 6am when very few people are listening (that's when Jim Bohannan from Westwood One airs- live feed 10pm-1am - then repeated via satellite 1am-4am- so his show would suddenly get picked up in more markets as the lib alternative to meet the new demand by the FCC). I like Jim's show, wish it was on earlier so I would be up and awake to listen ( I used to enjoy his show when I worked shift work years ago).

I believe the problem we face is that political talk today is seen as entertainment and not news/public service programming as in years past prior to the Limbaugh revolution on AM radio. Today stations make money using political talk as an entertainment feature. So if they don't believe they can generate enough ratings to appeal to the advertisers, they won't want to run lib talk.

Another aspect of this issue that might make this more difficult to solve is generally speaking, liberals tend to be college educated, more widely read, members of mainline Christian churches like (Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterians, Episcopals, and Jews, etc, whereas conservatives tend to be less educated, read ONLY conservative articles - books - and websites, members of fundamentalist, Baptist, Evangelical Protestant churches. That probably is why NPR works well with liberals and moderates and not so well with conservatives. NPR talk shows are more substance oriented and less emotional appeal as Rush/Beck/Hannity. I've often stated that Rush is a "secular" preacher. He reminds me of some Baptist or fundamentalist type preachers I've heard over the years. Same sort of bombastic style. Whereas the Methodist and Lutheran pastors ( I've heard over the years) offer a more thoughtful look at the scriptures and their meanings in their sermons with far less emotional appeal.

That may have some reason why commercial radio's lib talkers don't do as well as Rush and the gang, yet NPR does great and has much support, even during these tough financial times. Maybe the NPR style of talk appeals more to the generally better educated, more widely read, liberal audience than the Rush/Hannity approach to talk that appeals to conservative listeners. Unfortunately, it may get to the point where the FCC would start mandating a more balance approach to airing political talk. Frankly I don't believe the FCC will do this.

The other thought, as the previous poster mentioned, would be for the FCC to go back to the rule that limited how many stations a corporation could own (this would really hurt Clear Channel as they own over 1200 radio stations nationwide), but maybe CC has abused this privilege with their heavy reliance on Fox Radio News/Rush/Beck/Hannity). Of course, it could be argued that CC's own network(Premiere) which airs Rush/Hannity/Beck also now airs Randi Rhodes(of course she's not on any CC stations that I can pick up, but she's on the radio someplace - probably markets #300-350, but she's on the radio.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

We tend to see the world AS WE KNOW IT, today.

For all practical purposes, TALK RADIO did not exist at the time of the much hated Fairness Doctrine. It was originally implemented for the purpose of keeping newscasts and public affairs interviews in some kind of balance. And my memory of the impact of the Fairness Doctrine was that it focused on PERSONAL ATTACKS against people who were not public figures. If someone attacked an elected office holder, no foul. Those people should expect the rough and tumble effects of political battle. But if someone during your 6:30 A.M. Sunday Morning public affairs interview broadcast attacked the character and morals of Suzie Smith, president of the local PTA because she had expressed support or opposition to Sex Education in the public schools, it was "call the lawyer" time come Monday morning and offer Suzie Smith "equal time" to defend her character and morals.

The landscape is so different in broadcasting.... and in society... today. Trying to invent a new Fairness Doctrine that would address the landscape today is like trying to invent a cure for Alzheimer's. Where the hell do you START, much less complete such a task.

I sum it up this way: expecting the Marketplace to manage the UNfairness that may exist in radio today is a bit like saying the Marketplace is going to properly manage the immorality of prostitution.

We need to focus on convincing advertisers, broadcasters and listeners that somehow radio without the shouting is good for America.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Good point, Goat Rodeo Cowboy.

As I remember radio talk shows back then, they were local shows with titles like Voice of the People, It's Your Nickel, Your Two Cents Worth, Citizens Forum, etc. The shows were more a radio forum for the caller to express their point of view with the host acting more as a moderator or possibly as a devil's advocate just to help the caller better express their point of view, where the caller was the reason for tuning in (probably viewed by the owners of the station as a public service. Whereas today the host (a secular preacher of a particular political point of view) literally is preaching his/her message of politics to the masses and where the lucky few callers generally get on the air to make a 10-20 second thought before being muted and the host pontificates on your point. Today, the host rather than the caller, is what's important.

Those old talk shows seemed far more civil. They probably didn't get the ratings today's talkers get, but I do remember plenty of spots so the radio stations may have actually made some money doing a public service type show. Unfortunately, I don't believe we'll be able to go back to those "gentler times" of talk radio. As GRC pointed out, our society is very different today from prior to the 1980's when "Rush - Crush the Opposition Talk" became the standard.

 

[joshzz]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

The answer would be in the data. It has long been suggested that most of these programs are nothing more than an informercials for the political parties. The results would show beyond any doubt that dissenting views don't get on the air. It would end any credibility that certain radio talk shows hosts have gathered over the years.

As I said, Late Night Talk would have a field day with it.

For instance, Rush Limbaugh has long stated that he wants to debate Barack Obama. Everyone would now know beyond any shadow of a doubt that he won't debate listeners and as such he would lose all credibility.. It would be proof that the entire long running program has been a farce. I know this for a fact but the public needs to see it.

It would be the end of many of these programs. We are talking about a major shift in what the public would perceive as truth. You may not see it but analysts do.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

I fully understand what you would like to achieve.

Take a course in statistics and surveys. You have to generate data from random sample selection if the resulting data is to have integrity.

The mechanics you have described would quickly be corrupted by fans of talk radio as we know it who would call in, jam the switchboards and give misleading information. The hosts, knowing the system is in place, would encourage people to dial in and disrupt the integrity of the sample.

I was working in radio back when radio stations used to set up audience studies that they could manipulate. Finally the FCC (and maybe in co-operation with the FTC) stepped in and laid out the rules. If you quote audience studies, they must be the results of a study that meets federal guidelines.

I remember circa 1960 there was an upstart new radio station in the Little Rock, AR market making alll kinds of claims about being the number one station in all of Little Rock. Finally the truth came out. They were able to set up a deal with Western Union that WU would report how many telegrams were received by radio stations in Little Rock. Nobody else knew such a scheme had been set up. The station began running contests and to win the cash prizes, you had to send your entry via a Western Union telegram.

Guess who was the only station in Little Rock receiving telegrams in any volume. THUS, ladies and gentlemen, According to Western Union, we are the most listened to station in the Little Rock Market!

Garbage In. Garbage Out.

 

[joshzz]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

I fully understand what you would like to achieve.

Take a course in statistics and surveys. You have to generate data from random sample selection if the resulting data is to have integrity.

Hi Cowboy, this wouldn't entail a survey of any kind. A survey would offer little insight. This is data that would have to reported each and every day following the airing of the previous program. Even if some advocates of the host tried to skew the data, it would be short lived and the truth is, the cult host followers call everyday anyway so there would be little impact.


Regarding statistics, etc., without divulging too much of my background, I had multiple statistics courses in college.

 

[radioboy]

Re: ANOTHER ANSWER TO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

From a former operations manager's point of view, keeping those kinds of logs would be a nightmare.

A lot of stations are barely keeping their transmitter logs up to date..something that is an FCC requirement.

This sounds very cumbersome for the smaller stations especially.