For those who don't know, this is about talk radio. I must admit that if I could I'd have the radio on set to my favorite station 770KOB all day. But I can't and maybe that's a good thing. ???
Talk radio is generally conservative in nature when it gets away from gardening shows, the car doctor, Glenn Haggee, Master Handyman, Handel On The Law, Coast to Coast AM, etc. I enjoy some of those on drives up to the mountains on weekends. I also enjoy listening to, but do not always agree with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity Michael Savage and local Jim Villanucci.
The point is the radio stations are free to present what they want to. For some reason or another the big successful talk radio shows are conservative in nature, not liberal. This upsets the democrats. One of our local federal senators (D) is on record that he wants to see the Fairness Doctrine reinstated, so radio stations like the one he was interviewed on must present a balanced view.
At one time, 1949, the Fairness Doctrine made some sense. There was ABC, NBC and CBS and not much else. The Fairness Doctrine declared that broadcasters must "present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced." The definition of honest, equitable, and balanced was to be determined by the government. Listeners did not have much choice.
Today there are about 14,000 radio stations, twice as many as 40 years ago. Plus there is satellite radio and the internet. The choices are virtually limitless.
In 1985 under Reagan's presidency the FCC announced that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. After some Supreme Court rulings in August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote. Radio stations were free to program whatever they felt was salable, within good taste rules. Not sure where Don Imus or Howard Stern fits into this. ::)
Anyhow, expect the democrats under Obama to make another attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine because they can't seem to compete on a level playing field. What do you think?
Hmm... maybe I should get a radio station...
I think some will try, but it will not be supported by most. I hear quite a bit about the "liberal" media on many of these stations. They don't seem to realize they are part of the media. There is every type of media under the sun now, in every type of form. If you have read it or heard it, it is from the media. For every conservative outlet there is a liberal outlet and vise versa. The liberal stations will oppose this as much as the conservative. Both sides would be running to the supreme court before the ink was dry. It would be interesting to have both sides of the political spectrum coming together though.
I do agree that there are more stations now, but ownership is actually consolidated. After the telecommunications act of 1996 Clear Channel Snatched up much of the market. The previous limit of ownership was 70 stations. So if the number of stations was half (7000) there were still at least 100 owners across the nation. Now there is around 5-10 big players. All those shows and many of their liberal counter parts are owned by the same company, Clear Channel Communications. I do not agree with the fairness doctrine, but I also do not agree with only a few outlets controlling much of the government owned airways.
if there was a market for liberal talk radio they would not need the doctrine. usually conservative points of view make more sense to most people.
Quote from: apaknad on December 09, 2008, 02:37:29 PM
if there was a market for liberal talk radio they would not need the doctrine. usually conservative points of view make more sense to most people.
This is my thought exactly. Conservative radio stations do well because more people agree with it. Forcing more shows to be liberal would not sustain itself because there is no point in advertising on a show that people don't naturally listen to. It's not like people are forced to listen to conservative stations, they choose to.
It's the same thing with TV. Lot's of people complain about how TV shows are pushing the envelope...but they fail to realize that TV shows like that would not exist if people did not watch them. Which is why we have a "remote control"
Quote from: Sonoran on December 09, 2008, 07:40:06 PM
Forcing more shows to be liberal would not sustain itself because there is no point in advertising on a show that people don't naturally listen to.
Therein lies the worry. If the Fairness Doctrine comes back today's talk radio would disappear and the replacements would be innocuous gardening shows, etc. I have nothing against gardens, I simply picked that as something that generally is not controversial.
All I would say to this is that they should be forced to sell equal time to any and all views who are willing to pay for the time. Price should be the same for all. The problem comes when they refuse to allow any other views to be voiced on air. We have this problem in TV and radio now. No matter how much cash you have you can't buy political time on TV if you're not Democrat or Republican.
Is this a poll ? " fair or not"
I vote not.
The market will take care of itself.
sparks
I guess I could have made it a poll... too late now. I was more or less looking to see of anyone had heard of this and had any thoughts about it. I believe this fits into the "less government is best" category. 8)
I just realised by saying 'not' that I might 'not' have understood the original premise of your statement. d*
Double negatives always confuse me.
sparks
Haven't there been some short-lived liberal talk radio shows? With famous hosts? The names escape me right now, but I'm sure it's been tried numerous times and just does not attract enough listenership or sponsorship to stay on the air. Maybe someone else will recall the details. It seems like there was a lot of fanfare about one such show 4 or 5 years ago, and it lasted about a month and fizzled. Ring a bell with anyone else?
Alec Baldwin, Al Franken, Whoopi Goldberg, Mario Cuomo, Jerry Brown, ???
Jerry Brown (aka "Governor Moonbeam") may be the one I'm thinking of.....
Of course, this most likely wouldn't apply to National Peoples Radio, oprah or other such. No biases there.