I take the stance of Ralph Nader on this issue (read Amy Goodman's interview with Nader from Democracy Now: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/09/131226). Privatization is not accurate any longer, no matter how many people claim it to be. It is corporatization, allowing, nay, encouraging monopolies in places the private sector should not even be allowed. It is my honest belief that capitalism and corporatization are two of the most fundamental flaws with the conservative ideology, the naive belief that the market will balance everything out. As any half-observant person can see, from Enron to WorldCom to Microsoft, corporations rarely feel sympathy towards the consumer. Anything to increase profit margins at the expense of all else, unless government steps in and forces their hand.

And yes, I do believe they are mean, nasty, evil corporations. There are VERY few corporations which could even be considered egalitarian, and that number is shrinking on a daily basis. Once a corporation with high ethics and good business practices realizes they can make more money by shifting into questionable ethical territory, they will do it. Corporations are mini-dictatorships, the complete opposite of the supposed republic we fight for in our country. It is a complete and utter joke, and whenever I hear about "privatization" or the "private sector", I shake my head and laugh dishearteningly. In a perfect world, Ayn Rand's philosophy would be such a noble one. But we don't live in a perfect world--we live in a greedy world. And as long as that is the case, government regulations are about the only possible way to counter dictatorships running our economy.

Wow, that was just a bit off-topic.

Yes, one perspective must be reduced to accommodate other perspectives. The difference is, the government isn't making the selection, the vendor is. That's why its not censorship.


If you'll read the original argument, CP, I basically said any tyrannical ideology you wanted to insert there. Feel free to pick. The point isn't hyperbole, though I'll admit to extremity to prove the point. Your "market" has flaws, especially when there are little controls preventing consolidated ownership of the airways.


You would prefer I use "reduced substantially"? Fine. Again, can we stop talking about talk radio, conservatives won, liberals lost, I get it. That horse is worm feed. That's not where the brunt of my argument lay.

BINGO. Now you get it. As I've said before, I don't care about the divide between conservative and progressive talk radio. But when removal of the fairness doctrine results in a substantial reduction in the amount of news and public affairs programming on PUBLIC airways, that is a concern.


But that's exactly the point, CP, its not news. Deliberately biased commentary has replaced news and public affairs discourse. I'm guessing you don't subscribe to the idea of the media being a Fourth Estate in our political system.


We're talking in circles here. According to your paradigm, Clear Channel has no incentive to appeal to 20% of the market when there is an 80% share to be had.

Orwellian doublespeak. The government is coercing the vendor to reduce one perspective. What 'selection' does the vendor have when you limit their choices?



And government regulation only ensures that consolidation, it doesnt hurt it. History has shown time and again that regulation in various industries has led to even more monpoloziation because it is usually only the most powerful corporations that can afford to pay the penalties.



A concern to whom? Not to the millions of people who listen to the programming. I personally find it insulting to be told what I should and should not be listening to. If it is a disservice to myself to listen to commentary instead of news, then that is my choice to make.



There is an incentive only if vying for that 20% is deemed profitable.

This really is a fascinating subject when I try to look at it from the outside. How about a fairness doctrine for protests? If anti-war protesters want to rent public space, they must make room for protesters of opposing views also. That would be "fair."

The government's action results in the silencing of a given viewpoint for X period of time. That's censorship regardless of whether or not the government chooses who personally can speak. The government says, "you can't have a conservative viewpoint on at this time"...that's censorship.

That's only because you see consolidated ownership as a "flaw" in and of itself. Conservative talk has an overwhelming percentage of the share of nationally synidicated shows, that is obvious. My point is that local/regional radio broadcasters will have to cater to the demands of liberals within their given markets [New York, LA, etc.]

LINK





It only makes sense that those who own media outlets [Sinclair, Clear Channel, etc.] cater to the wants of conservatives for the simple fact that conservatives dominate the talk-radio market.

Let's also not pretend that Clear Channel hasn't made attempts to supply liberal members of the talk-radio market with what they are demanding.
LINK
So apprently this radio broadcasting BUSINESS is in it...for the money. Who'duh thunk it?

And herein lies the fundamental flaw. You see the market's choice as a "concern". You wish to undermine that choice because you do not think it is what's best. Who decides what is best for the market, Doc, if not the market itself? Personally, I think popular music is partially responsible for the dumbing down of the country and the loss of any cultural identity...But it's what the people want...Still, maybe the government should come in and replace, say, Shakira with somone I deem more acceptable, Charlie Musselwhite. Same idea. The market has made a choice, the Fairness Doctrine is what those who support it see as a "correction" of the market's choice. Again, the notion is insulting to me that the grown adults who have chosen conservative talk need someone to hold their hand and show them how wrong they are.

I think to a certain extent that the news media is a a "fourth estate"...But since talk-radio isn't the news media, this is a moot point.

As demonstrated by my link above, Clear Channel is attempting to appeal to the 20%.

CP

Doublespeak? I think you need to revisit that definition, Leder. My statement was quite accurate and far from vague. The purpose of my response is that I do not believe it is censorship a) because it doesn't match the definition and reduction of time alloted for a viewpoint does not censor it. Otherwise Joe Biden would be screaming censorship at the debates.


Huh? So we broke up AT&T because our previous regulations were effective? Please explain.


I think you need to provide some evidence here, Leder. The cost of entry into the media market isn't because of FCC regulations. Market concentration has taken place during the lowest points of media regulation, so that would seem to invalidate your historical analogy.


Don't internalize this, Leder. The government isn't saying you listen to Sean Hannity too much (though some may argue any time with him is too much ), just that the licensee needs to provide some balance in its programming. The way the Fairness Doctrine was implemented was far less Draconian than you or CP are indicating.


You're missing the concept and misunderstanding the reasons for the Fairness Doctrine. The space you're referring to has a low cost of entry, a lack of scarcity* (unlike public airwaves, there are tons of places to protest) and can also be utilized by other protest groups. That's why publishing has never been subject to the fairness doctrine. That's also likely why the Internet won't be. But when most people are getting their information (news) and public affairs information from TV and Radio, the government (and I would argue, the people as well) has a vested interest in seeing some balance in perspective as it relates to matters of public importance.

* to be clear here, I'm referring to scarcity as it relates to market concentration by the likes of Clear Channel, Sinclair, GE, etc.



Again, the government isn't saying you have to have news and public affairs programming in the 10am slot. Its not time specific, yet another reason it isn't censorship.


That's because it is. Its simple economics. Reduce the number of suppliers and you reduce choice/perspective.


Again, can we leave the conservative vs. progressive talk radio argument alone? I've conceded it I don't know how many times and said its not the point, except where it crowds out news & public affairs programming.


The market still retains choice in this equation, CP. Plenty of choice. Its not as if the decades under the Fairness Doctrine we held the reins so tightly that new choices were incapable of entering the media realm. This is not a zero sum equation.


Bad analogy, you're back to left vs. right talk radio again in comparisons. Not talk radio vs. news & public affairs programming


This is a gross distortion of what the fairness doctrine is, and arguably disingenuous unless you really don't understand what the doctrine did while it was in effect.


Its not a moot point when talk-radio is crowding out actual news & public affairs programming.

And just to be perfectly clear here, I'm not advocating a return of the Fairness Doctrine as it was in 1987. It needed some tweaks and probably improved governance. The times have changed and the scarcity equation isn't what it once was. But unless you're willing to accept some return of the ownership percentage rules, then the Fairness Doctrine is what would be needed to balance the equation and preserve the public interest.

If you have one point of view being expressed on a given medium and it is decided by an arbitrary and subjective power that those views are excessive, then coercing the medium to curtail the view's expression is censorship. Plain and simple. If one cannot express themselves to the extent by which they want, they are being censored. Just because they are able to express their views in a manner that you deem substantial or even excessive, doesnt give anyone the right to restrict it.



Government regulation allows corporate and special interests to have a stronger hand on the decisions made by lawmakers. This is because they spend millions on lobbying Congress. If Congress had no power over their respective industry, there would be no reason to lobby. Obviously regulation benefits the strongest corporations because they have the most money. They can lobby the most for votes and any rules or regulations that are imposed on their industry will not affect them as greatly as it will less powerful or small businesses. Regulation benefits big business because it is used as a tool to hurt free competition from smaller entitites.



The best example is the federal minimum wage. It has been used as a tool by which politicians can "stick it" to the big box corporations like Wal Mart to pay a fair wage. Well Wal Mart is a multi-billion dollar company. Forcing them to pay extra wages may not affect them as greatly as it would small businesses with limited resources and a small labor force. It allows Wal Mart to have a stronger hold on the market because smaller businesses must spend more on wages than on improving their product.

Under the "fairness doctrine" i am assuming that any station that fails to adhere to the fairness will be hit with a fine of some sort. Well the major media corporations might decide that they can take a hit on the fines and still churn out the services they want because the profits will cover. Smaller radio stations will not be able to afford the fines and will be forced to air programming that may not be profitable thus securing the largest corporations at the top of the market.



Its worse than a Draconian measure because it is dressed up real pretty intending to deceive the majority of people. The fact is that stations will be coerced into complying with the fairness doctrine. I am all in favor of promoting balance, but this is NOT the way to do it. There are plenty of liberal personalities on television and in other medias that can pull off good ratings. Hannity, O'Reilly, both have television shows along with their radio program raising their potential audience. If some stronger liberals (much stronger than Al Franken) would host a radio show, then perhaps people would tune in. We are looking at the situation and instead of trying to think of practical solutions and explanations, we are going straight to big daddy governnment to make things all better.



And i think that it should be up to each individual to decide whats in their vested interested, not the government.



So its ok if the stations play progressive talk radio from 12-5 am? Would that satisfy the fairness doctrine?

NT makes a good point here:



As far as the first category goes, -- the black voices-- his name is Tavis Smiley and were it not for PBS, there'd be mostly Black silence on the AM dial... save the Steve Harvey morning show, which hardly qualifies in the category we're talking.

I'm strongly in favor of public-radio. It's cheap. Every county, parish, city, town should have a station, and they should open it up to the public. I used to do a show on WRFG atlanta. It was a blast. I got to know my community in a way i would never have otherwise known, in all the diversity that makes America great. And I agree with Leder:



The dems would win an affection from me they haven't enjoyed in a very long time if, instead of dictating how much of x as opposed to y could be on the airwaves, they opened up some channels for the full range of the alphabet to vent their side.

Sure it does, there are all kinds of time, place, and manner restrictions to the First Amendment on the books today. Unless you believe the inability to yell fire in a movie theater is censorship, your application fails to meet the definition I provided.


This is an interesting argument. And I'm not inclined to disagree with it conceptually, except for two reasons. First, the AT&T example I gave disproves that this happens always. AT&T was broken up into the baby bells because, during a period of unfettered deregulation, it achieved monopoly power, thus ushering in an era of telecomm regulation to prevent such monopolies from taking place again (though some might argue we're coming full circle in that respect). Second, the media concentration taking place today is during lowered regulatory requirements. Unless you're arguing for complete deregulation, which is impractical now because you can't put that toothpaste back in the tube (to borrow a SCOTUS analogy), some regulatory requirement now is a necessity. I'll grant you the influence that corporations have over these regulations is at the core of the corruption on this issue, and proves your argument in a limited context, but not at the specific context we have here.

I haven't been able to confirm this, but I don't believe the Fairness Doctrine had a fine structure associated with it. I'll keep digging, though.


Then how would you do it? I'm definitely open to suggestions, but thus far either addressing the concentration levels of the number of companies owning stations or a return to the Fairness Doctrine seems to be the only alternatives.


It still is up to them. They aren't forced to listen to the difference in programming, it just has to be made available.


I'm trying to decide if you're being deliberately obtuse here. If you aren't, then I apologize but I've stated a number of times that the balancing act of the Fairness Doctrine isn't that specific. And I've also stated a number of times that the issue isn't conservative vs. progressive talk radio. Its talk radio vs. news & public affairs programming.

Apples and oranges. One thing does undue harm to another individual while another does not. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not censorship of protected speech. Requiring a private entity to curtail a certain programming and replace it with something else is.



Actually, AT&T PROVES my point:

Wikipedia: AT&T



It was regulation, not deregulation that created a monopoly that resonated throughout the 20th century.



I haven't seen it either, but I assume it only because how else do you enforce it?



Like i said, entice better media personalities to use the radio as their medium of choice.



I'm sorry Doclotus, I just see it as wrong to force someone to make something available for another. I have faith in the market and faith in the idea that the people know whats best for them and not others. If they want to listen to commentary,t hat is their choice. If they want to listen to news, that is their choice. They aren't forced to listen to commentary either...but they do.

Just an interesting tidbit that I thought I would mention, in response to the idea that people are free to choose what they wish in regards to the media. While it's true to a certain extent that people are free to choose, there is also a wealth of literature out there that demonstrates that the more people view a certain viewpoint, the more likely they are to believe and accept that viewpoint. Trying to discover the effects of the media is extremely difficult; there comes a point where public opinion influences the media, and where media influences public opinion. The two factors play into each other, and it is difficult to say which factor truly causes the other.

That being said, there are numerous studies that document the effects of different media on public opinion. In all the studies I've read (and I will cite a few below), the authors conclude that what people see, hear and read influence what they think.

So one can say that people have free will to choose what they like, but perhaps they are failing to realize that people's tastes are influenced by things that they are already surrounded by. For instance, everyone always complains about negative campaign ads and what a turn off they are; however, interestingly enough, negative campaign ads work. Even though we all say that we are disgusted by them, negative ads have an effect on people. This is just one example of how the media influences us, even if we consciously do not want to be influenced by it.

If one believes that we are influenced by the media, then it would only be fair to provide as many viewpoints as possible, in order to allow the public to make their own decisions. If only limited views are disseminated through the media, then we are effectively not allowed to make up our own minds; instead, we are only "allowed" to think about what the media deems we should think about. Perhaps this was not the case previously, which is how certain view points became prevalent; however, one could certainly argue that this is the case presently...And in order to create a more informed electorate, we should present a multitude of viewpoints, regardless of the profit margin.

That being said, I don't actually know anything about the Fairness Doctrine, so I am not sure if that is what I am advocating for.
(OK, here's one interesting study that I read about newspaper editorials and how they influence public opinion:
Entman, Robert M. (May 1989) How the media affect what people think: An information processing approach. Journal of Politics, 51(2) pp. 347-370. Retrieved Oct. 6, 2005 from EBSCO.

In a paper I wrote summarizing his argument: According to Entman, people cannot form opinions autonomous of the media; previously, communications research stated that the media cannot influence how people think, but it can influence what they think about. Entman states that because the media influences what we think about, it effectively tells people what to think.

Also, a few more studies that talk about media influences:
Gilliam, Franklin D., Iyengar, Shanto (Jul. 2000) Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science, 44(3), pp. 560-573. Retrieved Sept. 16, 2005 from JSTOR.

Fernando, Mark Phillips C. (May 1, 2003). The late-night effect: Late-night television’s effect on the perception of political figures. Graduate Thesis, Georgetown University. Retrieved Sept. 14, 2005 from Google Scholar.

Also, for anyone who feels like reading about negative campaign ads and their effectiveness, Shanto Iyengar has written extensively on the subject. I'm sure you could find someone by him.)

Not necessarily. Protected speech is still regulated in limited form in this country, Leder. It just has a higher degree of constitutional scrutiny while doing so. I won't dispute that a return of the Fairness Doctrine would require a sensitivity to First Amendment concerns. But for a period of time while it existed, SCOTUS found no such violations. Careful framing of the regulations could address those issues.

My historical recollection stands corrected However it doesn't really prove your point because the government, both state and federal, actually created the "natural monopoly" using regulation as the engine for it. I know the distinction is subtle, but it is significant when compared to the FCC's actions as it relates to media ownership and the deregulation of the last 11 years or so (or since the 1996 Telecomm Act that loosened up ownership restrictions in local markets).


Most of the court cases I've read regarding it relate to statutory requests for equal time (such as the bid Red Lion case). Their balance was also addressed during hearings to renew licenses. I won't dismiss that fines could be part of the equation, I just haven't been able to find any. Them darn Internets be failin me.


Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear on this. The imbalance of the ideology of talk radio isn't what needs to be addressed. Its the scarcity of news & public affairs programming that has been crowded out by talk radio.


I understand your point, and I don't entirely dismiss it. All things being equal, I'd prefer the government stay out of the equation. But I also see a fundamental issue in our society where people's information regarding important issues of the day is mostly being fed from TV & Radio (especially TV). This article from the Seattle Times explains it a little better than I can(link):

But there's one "myth" that remains unshattered, which I stated in my post: if Clear Channel's turning down a lucrative market for ideological reasons, then other stations, however small a minority they may constitute, would grab it right up, and it would become obvious that Clear Channel is having its own bottom line take a hit for an economically frivolous reason. If nothing else, that would cause its own shareholders to revolt (this being a publicly traded company and all).

The facts don't add up here. I think it's time to take a good hard look at another explanation for why right-wing talk radio fares so much better than left-wing talk radio.

This discussion is interesting in that it showcases a large fissure in liberal versus conservative philosophy.

I think the econonmy being such a demand based entity negates this article, Doc. If in Maine, people preferred the old format of radio, someone would've come up with the dough to buy a radio frequency and put something on the air. If it were truly the way it should be, that station would've taken off.

Here's a good analogy. In Shreveport, Louisiana there wasn't Starbucks until 2 years ago but there were local coffee shops. Starbucks can afford big ads, billboards, promotions, etc. They DID come in and shut down a couple of local places. However, after a short while, people missed the "local shops" and many complained that Starbucks was too "commercial". Guess what happened? Sometime last year, a couple of local shops opened and are doing banner business. Big business will always have the financial ability to dominate a market place on the short term and force feed ideas. The issue is if it doesn't have a value proposition, it is bound to fail. I could go on and on... T MObile is a great example... General Motors might be another.

The myth is shattered. Whether or not the Ohio format might be picked up, or that i can be picked up, does not explain away why Clear Channel did what they did. The point still stands. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation as to why the popular progressive format was changed to an unpopular one, and then after that sank, why it went to a sports format, rather than what worked previously. There is no other answer other than the fact that in a state with considerable electoral influence(Ohio) in play in an election, the Clear channel folks didn't want alternative views to get out. Ditto Stern. The guy had ratings and when he got political, the cord got plugged? It was purely coincidental right?

This is just my opinion. But nobody likes to hear liberals whine and moan on talk radio. Conservative radio tends to be people who are bullies and very aggressive, they can tend to stir people up and get them to call, whether they agree or disagree, where as liberals gripe and complain(which makes me want to turn the channel). Pure and simple, people don't like complainers.

Well, I have yet to hear you back up this notion that the old format was popular. Your original link was a partial repost of what appeard on the Liberal Talk Radio blogspot site on June 30. They themselves linked to this article:



Was it purely coincidental that it happened less than a month after the Janet Jackson Incident, in the immediate aftermath of which political pressure was ramped up sharply on broadcasters to clean up their act?

As for why Savage didn't get the same treatment, let's examine that point further. You posted Savage's words as evidence, so now why don't you post Stern's for comparison?

Oh, that's right, you'd run afoul of 's rules if you did.

I will agree that the ratings weren't at the top of the heap by far. An argument could be made that being in the middle of the pack for seven months isn't too bad and that tinkering with the liberal line up, rather than junking it entirely would've been the best route to go. Look what happened after the over haul, the station in question lost 66% of it's viewers. If Randi Rhodes isn't catching on, perhaps changing her out with Ed Schultz, who regularly thumps Sean Hannity would be a good route to go.

I still don't agree with you at all about Stern. His incident wasn't near the level of hatred and outright disrespect towards certain groups in our society as the Savage and Handel incidents. Stern's problem was with what a caller said when he was on the air, not what Stern himself actually said. Amazing that Stern got the book thrown at him for something he couldn't control. Perhaps the FCC expects Stern to have clairvoyance and to know what a given person he puts on the air will say? The other two hosts routinely show their true colors, yet, they are never called on it by Clear Channel. Then again, they are not liberals in a state that could go either way in an election year.

CNN has Glenn Beck, MSNBC had Savage. Why couldn't Clear Channel utilize Ed Schultz or Stephanie Miller?

I suppose it depends on how you define "regularly". Schultz cites the cases where he's beat out Hannity in ratings, but doesn't mention where he lost. This blogger examines the numbers further (3rd entry down on the page), which I think raises a legitimate question as to just how much of a splash Kurtz is making. Is the fact that he beats Hannity in some markets truly an indicator of how well he's doing nationwide?

You may be right that switching to Kurtz would have made good financial sense. Then again, you may be wrong. It's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that Clear Channel truly sensed that it wouldn't be as good for their bottom line to have him around as it would be to try other formats that have been moneymakers elsewhere.


The purpose of decency standards isn't to promote "respect" towards any particular group. That's not how it works in any other area. If Mike Savage's material were made into a movie, its rating would be PG-13, at most. Stern's would be rated R. It's not just what callers say (although there is a method of controlling that, too, that involves time delays), it's also what he himself says, or the sound effects he uses, or what's clearly going on in the broadcasting room even if it can't be seen. It's the kind of stuff you couldn't even describe second-hand around the dinner table.

I've been listening to stern since about 1997. Not only is he tamer than a lot of shock jocks, he's a lot smarter too. I can't imagine you actually listen to him Blackstone because you're parrotting things people say who definitely do not listen to him say about his show.

As for a rating system between Stern and Savage... Savage might in fact have a "lower" rating but then Savage doesn't address sexuality at all. Stern does.

Now you tell me what's more harmful: Talking to strippers or calling for people to be killed. Sounds to me like the rating system is borked.

Not on a regular basis, but I have listened to a couple of his shows, and it's not stuff that I would share in a family discussion, even to condemn it.


You're putting it in slightly exaggerated terms, but in general, this ultimately isn't about whether the "rating system" has the right set of priorities. The fact is, Clear Channel didn't come up with it. Our society did. Condemn that if you want, but that doesn't in any way demonstrate that CC discriminated against Stern because of his politics. Hate speech, unless it's gorily explicit in some way, usually doesn't get regarded as obscene material.