More on The Fairness Doctrine

[radioplayer]

I've noticed in the last few titles regarding this topic, that supporters of the status quo do not seem to understand the following facts:

1) The political system and process on how we debate, defend and inform our electorate in this country is very broken

2) That the country has become far more polarized today then before 1987

3) That clear and objective information is instead 'spun" and is clearly unbalanced on most radio and TV outlets

4) Stations and their owners have become extremely rich however, their staff salaries have remained relatively flat


I'd like to hear these same supporters try and debate these points with more than just talking points....I ask for clear, reasonable, factual information is what we need. I'd also like to know how anyone can use the public's airwaves (licensee's are really only a "lease" for the term of the license issued) to exploit the public and NOT inform them of the same.....all under the guise of so-called truth and ONE SIDED information.

Please spare us the same tired response that re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine would somehow be unworkable, complicated, or that the Internet and Satellite would be unaffected-those excuses are not going to fly. The Commission can invoke whatever rule it wants and can include ALL MEDIA if it so chooses, so stick to answering the real issue please-why would anyone keep things the way they are?

 

[TheBigA]

I'd also like to know how anyone can use the public's airwaves (licensee's are really only a "lease" for the term of the license issued) to exploit the public and NOT inform them of the same.....all under the guise of so-called truth and ONE SIDED information.

There is nothing in the law that obliges them to do this beyond normal journalistic intergrity. If it doesn't apply to people on cable or the internet, why the exception for terrestrial? The public doesn't understand the difference. And they will go where they get what they want, whether it's true, unbiased, or not.

why would anyone keep things the way they are?

It has been my unfortunate experience during the past 20 years that any time anyone in government attempts to make a change in the law, even with great intentions, it somehow gets screwed up in the process and turned into sausage. If anyone attempts to come up with a law to institute some kind of fairness, someone will find a way to insert their own bias into it, thus making it equally unfair. Fairness is one of those things that is in the eyes of the beholder. Even Walter Cronkite occasionally allowed his personal bias on the air. It's only human.

So in my view a bad situation with no law is better than a bad situation that's required by law.

 

[Aljr]

I'd like to see it back for the single reason of watching Glenn Beck's head explode.

"Dammit Sean,it's back to MC'ing Karaoke Night at the Best Western."

 

[radioplayer]

I'd also like to know how anyone can use the public's airwaves (licensee's are really only a "lease" for the term of the license issued) to exploit the public and NOT inform them of the same.....all under the guise of so-called truth and ONE SIDED information.

There is nothing in the law that obliges them to do this beyond normal journalistic intergrity. If it doesn't apply to people on cable or the internet, why the exception for terrestrial? The public doesn't understand the difference. And they will go where they get what they want, whether it's true, unbiased, or not.

why would anyone keep things the way they are?

It has been my unfortunate experience during the past 20 years that any time anyone in government attempts to make a change in the law, even with great intentions, it somehow gets screwed up in the process and turned into sausage. If anyone attempts to come up with a law to institute some kind of fairness, someone will find a way to insert their own bias into it, thus making it equally unfair. Fairness is one of those things that is in the eyes of the beholder. Even Walter Cronkite occasionally allowed his personal bias on the air. It's only human.

So in my view a bad situation with no law is better than a bad situation that's required by law.

Mr. Big A:
I see that your thoughts are consistant....however, no regulation or oversight is not wise and it is what got us into the current financial mess, as my first example. I think even you would agree that some regulation is neccessary to keep the greed from going amuck...and that everyone (not just broadcasters) needs to be more respectful of their communities and give back/serve them too....not just worship the almighty dollar or do things "just to make profit"

In your world you may not like or trust the Govt'...On my side of things, I'd rather have them regulate my airwaves and put in a few obligations for the broadcasters (like they used to) than leave it to the corporate greed suckers who only have $$ signs on their minds and absolutely no concern for my local issues, community or emergency information on my local station that I've tuned into know for music, news and information, particularly when I'm out on the road and can't this info (easily) anywhere else.

 

[TheBigA]

I think even you would agree that some regulation is neccessary to keep the greed from going amuck..

There are pages and pages of regulations, and lots of paperwork for stations to complete every year. The rules and the paperwork are not going to change the fact that listeners want to hear what they want, and they'll get it on the airwaves or someplace else. Forced fairness on the airwaves won' solve anything. Everyone has an agenda, including the government. And they're not immune from the greed thing.

A lot of people TALK about having concerns about local issues. But when my station broadcast local election forums and results, NO ONE listened. It was the single biggest mistake we ever made.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

A lot of people TALK about having concerns about local issues. But when my station broadcast local election forums and results, NO ONE listened. It was the single biggest mistake we ever made.

I can see that it was a disappointment to you.

How do you know that one one listened?

In what way was it a mistake? I'm not sure it is an audience-builder to run certain religious programs on Sunday morning. There are time that remotes from a business location turn out to be lack luster. Running a season of baseball games only to find out at the end seem to have stirred no loyalty. Was running election forums "a mistake" compared to any of those kinds of broadcast experiments or trial runs?

This is not intended to be a dispute of what you said. I just want to understand how you came to this evaluation. Did advertisers cancel? Did irate listeners threaten your safety? Did the FCC write you a nasty-gram?

 

[TheBigA]

How do you know that one one listened?

Obviously an exaggeration that no one listened...but it was a dramatic and obvious drop in listenership.

This was at a non-commercial community radio station in a major market, so we were obviously committed to providing this kind of programming, and were very interested in assessing the success and value of this information. We didn't stick this programming in a grave yard, like Sunday at 6AM. We instead ran it at 7PM.

We did several things to get response from listeners. First of all, we asked for calls from listeners. During a typical day, the phone rings all the time. We actively promoted this program during our regular day, and through ads in the newspaper, in order to reach people who might not normally listen. What we found is that we didn't receive many calls.

We then sent out questionaires to our members, our regular mailing list. We found that very few of our regular paying members listened, and also we found that very few of our regular paying members were interested in the issues covered in this kind of programming.

Third, when we did our quarterly fundraising, we again brought up our local informational programming, and found it didn't lead to people giving money to fund our station.

Now the immediate reaction is maybe the problem was the programming was dull and uninspiring. Perhaps that's true. But this was during the 70s, so we were operating under the Fairness Doctrine. Plus we also were still required to complete a Community Ascertainment survey. That was dropped a few years later. But these kinds of legal obligations often lead to dry and dull programming that covers all bases, discusses all the issues, and provides opportunities for disputing points of view. And the only responses we got were from agencies and organizations with obvious agendas. Not basic listeners. Once we moved from those kinds of programs to the current kind of talk shows, we got lots of input from normal listeners. Those left on the outside were the agencies and organizations with agendas, and these are the people who seem to be pushing for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

So as a broadcaster, we need to ask which program serves the public interest? The kind of programming that fulfills the legal rules and regulations set up by the government? Or the kind of programming that inspires and involves the public? I believe the latter. And as I've said, it may be disconcerting that people don't always come to the conclusions we'd like them to. Just as we're disappointed when people don't eat the right foods, don't exercise, don't follow the law, and don't treat people fairly. But that's human nature. No amount of radio programming is going to change that. Thus, my view that forcing a regulation on radio is not necessarily in the PUBLIC interest, but in the interest of certain special interest GROUPS who have agendas they wish to perpetuate.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Obviously an exaggeration that no one listened...but it was a dramatic and obvious drop in listenership.

This was at a non-commercial community radio station in a major market, so we were obviously committed to providing this kind of programming, and were very interested in assessing the success and value of this information. We didn't stick this programming in a grave yard, like Sunday at 6AM. We instead ran it at 7PM.

We did several things to get response from listeners. First of all, we asked for calls from listeners. During a typical day, the phone rings all the time. We actively promoted this program during our regular day, and through ads in the newspaper, in order to reach people who might not normally listen. What we found is that we didn't receive many calls.

I can see where that experience certainly influenced your evaluation of "talk" as a content of programming.

Just as a program director or music director must at times distance themselves from their personal music tastes and somehow find methodology to evaluate what the AUDIENCE wants for music, I am well aware that I may have a similar problem. I have always enjoyed informative radio, radio that informs, radio that investigates. Here are some observations and opinions.... colored a bit by my personal tastes.

1. Talk, news and public affairs reaches a fickle audience and it takes time, time, time. Limbaugh did not become a national sensation over night. He was focused on a concept and he "stayed the course". As a distant observer I gather that NPR has become a bit bifurcated. Part of NPR continues to provide serious and classical music. Another part of NPR has become a 'Talking Giant'. In cities where only one station carries NPR there can be quite a clash between the listeners and supporters who insist on the traditional classics and those who want more of the long-form interview programs carried. The news and talk portion of NPR has been substantial for some time now but we could stretch a little and say that it has taken them 30 years to break through the glass ceiling with their talk.

The people who put Air America together may have understood this "long gestation period" concept but their business plan did not reflect that. They needed to hit the scene prepared to grind away for 3 to 7 years. The grinding could have been better done by some people with promise than by the big-name celebrity people they elected to put on the air from the get-go.

2. Parts is Parts as the automotive ad proclaimed years ago, but "Talk is Talk" doesn't fly either. No one ever says "I'm going to buy a radio station and we are going to run music." How many identifiable music formats are there? And even once you decide you are going to program "Country"... that will be implemented successfully with a different mix of country music in Chattanooga than will work in Little Rock and even a different selection for Fargo, and something else in Columbus Ohio or Columbus Indiana. I am sure there are broadcasters across the country who, whether they can reduce their definition to words or not, have a vision of how talk must be done in their own community to work. But on the national scene and on these discussion boards, I don't seem much evidence that broadcast people have much of a sense and feel for different genres of public affairs, political talk, and news radio. The "parts is parts" philosophy may dominate the thinking.

3. Where in the bible does it spell out that a Public Affairs presentation has to be a 15 or 30 minute program. Until a public affairs effort has been established as a relationship between a station and it's audience, I can see where a 30 minute interview or discussion can be an audience killer. Is there some rule that says I can't spend 30 minutes or an hour with the school board and then slice and dice the content into what years ago we called "actualities"... little two and three minute vignettes scattered around like raisins in the oatmeal.

Now. Back to the primary topic of The Fairness Doctrine. If a station is going to force public affairs, talk and news into the kind of formats that are popular today: 3 hours of Boortz, 3 hours of Limbaugh, 3 hours of Hannity, 3 hours of Levine.... etc., there will be a train-wreck between programming and any new incarnation of any kind of fairness doctrine.

If there are other methodologies, other formats for doing talk, public affairs, information, etc, and if some of these methodologies would in the long term be good business successes, and batter service to the communities involved, I would argue that these other formats would find minimal clash with any reasonable implementation of some kind of "Fairness Mechanism". I would also argue that until something drives the current abortion known as "talk radio" out of the market place, good "organic farming" versions of public affairs will continued to be smothered out of the market place.

There is a new thread going currently on stop-sets.... Is it better to have more stop-sets per hour and keep them short, or have fewer interruptions of the music and go ahead and grind out 6, 7, 10, 12 commercials per stop. We are not having any of that kind of discussion of the mechanics of deliver talk, news and public affairs.