Questions for the debate:

1. would the revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” be “fair”. Why or why not?
2. Is this an attempt to muzzle conservative talk radio by liberal Democrats?
3. Should it be implemented? – Why?

Well let's face it this is all about Rush Limbaugh (bloated drug addict), Sean Hannity (he's totally cheating on his wife), Mark Levine and the gaggle of other Right Wingers. Just like Howard Stern though, the Left isn't really listening to them they just think they know what they are saying. When people tell me that Sean Hannity is a racist, or whatever, I have to laugh. The guy is railing against the Bush Whitehouse louder (and better) than anyone on the Left. Sure he's an untalented hack but if he's nothing else, he's fair.

But would the Fairness Doctrine be fair? No. Marketshare and ratings are fair.

Yes. However, this is a dumb game for them to play. If they actually get what they wish for there will need to be a WSJ for every NYT, and FNC for every MSNBC, etc.

Let the people decide what they want to hear.

1. would the revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” be “fair”. Why or why not?

It is a ridiculous law that has no place in this country. Pluralism is an important aspect of American culture, but what makes it significant is the freedom involved with the expression of ideas. Some see this doctrine as balancing out different point of views....I see it as coercing people into displaying a viewpoint counter to their own. That is the opposite of free speech and it should not be allowed.

2. Is this an attempt to muzzle conservative talk radio by liberal Democrats?

I won't go so far as to say that. Even if it is a noble attempt to present both point of views it is still wrong.

3. Should it be implemented? – Why?

As BA stated, let the ratings and the PEOPLE decide what they want to listen to. There is nothing hindering liberals from entering into talk radio, as they have done it before. Air America was a self-proclaimed liberal/progressive radio network. Aside from the corruption and poor management of the station, it had bad, in fact terrible ratings. Maybe liberals choose other mediums for their news/opinion such as the internet or newspapers...but it was tried and failed. Coercing other stations into doing this is plain wrong.

And this principle doesnt apply just to radio, it applies to all media. If the NYT wants to have liberal columnists, that is their business. If I do not like it, I will not buy it and give my money to an opposing newspaper. I would have a problem however if all forms of the media were forced to present all the points of view. It flies in the face of free expression and free speech.

When I heard this proposal on the radio this AM, I could not believe they were serious!! Go ahead, try to equalize the talk shows. All that will happen is that the listeners will all be relegated to one or two stations, and the Dems' talk shows will go down in flames! Of course this is an "attempt to muzzle conservative talk radio", but I don't understand why the Democrats would propose such an embarrassing solution. The marketplace will have the last word whether the liberal talk shows exist or not. It's sad really, that the liberal side of politics can't do better in this arena!

I wonder if the number of conservatives on TV will increase.

TV is the liberal media of choice, why not apply the fairness docterine to TV and radio as well....

I simply don't buy the myth that conservative talk radio is the only format that can survive. The simple fact of the matter is that the disparity in political programming is due to a structural imbalance whereby smaller companies are being consolidated at an alarming rate. The company is also known for shady schemes dealing with musicians, so it shouldn't surprise us that Clear Channel muzzles THE most popular radio host who isn't conservative over fears of how he could hurt Bush. It's one thing for a private company to determine who they will allow on the air, it's something else when that radio station owns 90% of the market. The airwaves belong to the public and as such, we have the right and authority to bring back standards of fairness regarding programming. A monopoly on the airwaves is a bad thing and is not indicative of "the market." When you have a monopoly, there is no "market correction" that can occur. No, this doesn't mean less airtime for Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, or Savage. It doesn't mean that your favorite clear channel monopolized station has to all of a sudden air Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy, but it will mean is that the Clear Channel behemoth can't have five echo channels in a given area. And that's the way it should be. I don't agree with allowing the right wing monopoly of the radio because t.v. is supposedly liberal. Glenn Beck is on CNN and the vast majority of sunday talk program guests are conservative. You'll find members of the Heritage Foundation or party heads before you'll ever find the likes of people from the Center for American Progress. This has been clearly documented as well.

Could you please provide substantiation for this 90% figure? I know that Clear Channel is the largest radio station owner, but "largest" is not synonymous with "only". If it's engaging in discrimination against leftist views, against market pressure, then the other stations (even if your extreme number is correct and they only make up 10%) should be cashing in pretty good on them. So are they?

1. would the revival of the “Fairness Doctrine” be “fair”. Why or why not?
Webster's defines "fair" as : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism

Could the fairness doctrine be resurrected to provide such a state for broadcast mediums? My answer to that is a tentative maybe. Some of this will bleed into question 3 regarding implementation but the return of the doctrine would probably require some tweaking and responsible people at the FCC in order to administer is (pardon the pun) fairly.

2. Is this an attempt to muzzle conservative talk radio by liberal Democrats?
Of course not, but this is a tainted question to begin with.

3. Should it be implemented? – Why?
I'm a bit on the fence about this, as I believe the governments ability to properly regulate anything regarding First Amendment activities is naturally suspect. However I'm going to offer a qualified yes. For a number of reasons:

First, the greatest check against the power of the government is an informed and educated electorate. As most folks on this forum likely would agree, the current state of our electorate is far from informed on most issues. When 41% of the country still believes that Saddam somehow had something to do with 9/11, we know we have a problem on that scale. The failure of our government and the media to offer any serious public discourse prior to our invasion in 2003 is an indication of where the fairness doctrine may have had a role. Would it have prevented us from moving forward? Maybe, hard to say with any certainty.

Second, the current trend of consolidation of nearly all media into large corporate ownership is troubling. The ability for the Fourth Estate to maintain its integrity seems to be in jeopardy. When so many media outlets seem to take their cues from The Drudge Report, something is amiss. When large corporations own the vast majority of the public airwaves, whether it be in television or radio, access from a First Amendment perspective will inevitably suffer.

Finally, consider where most Americans get their information regarding matters of public interest. TV, plain and simple. For most Americans, if you can't distill the information on an issue into a 30 second sound byte, the nuance and detail of complicated issues like immigration, the environment, health care, social security, etc. are lost in the ether, leaving the average consumer of that information either not informed at all, or worse, completely mis-informed. The Medicare Drug Plan is a good example of where a sound byte can fail to explain such a complicated program.

Is the Fairness Doctrine a cure all for some of these ills? Of course not, but it might be a step in the right direction of leveling some of the public discourse on important matters of the day. This problem wasn't created overnight, nor will it be resolved in that time frame.


One side note that might change my position on the doctrine. The Internet. The vast potential of this medium to help educate (and unfortunately misinform in some cases) the public on all sorts of topics is immense. It has a tremendous potential to create a two way dialogue that TV and Radio always failed to generate. Unfortunately, we're not there yet. Until internet access (and usage) become ubiquitous at the level of TV or Radio, its impossible to say if such a doctrine would become obsolete again. I see a lot of potential here, however, for making that a reality. is a classic example of that potential to educate and foster a marketplace of ideas. Unfortunately, like the rest of the content on the Internet, I think that potential is just peaking over the surface.

Who defines fair? The government or the market? In my view it is the people who approve or dissaprove of radio content that decide whether or not such content is suitable or should be on air. In my view, any act of government that actively seeks to weaken the choice of a market is unfair. So , no, the fairness doctrine's reinstatement would not be fair.

No, but it is a nifty side-effect. I'm sure it won't dissuade some of Congress' more stridently Democratic members from supporting it.

Absolutely not. Whether or not anyone cares to admit it, the "Fairness Doctrine" is a sophisticated and subtle form of censorship. It is a way for the government to decide who is on the radio and when. That alone should raise flags to anyone who supports the First Amendment and an independent media. In addition, and as I have mentioned, it is an unwarranted government interference in the free market. The consumers have decided to listen to Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage, the government would be acting against the market [and the people] by turning Michael Savage into something other than what Savage listeners want to listen to when they turn him on. Furthermore, the precedent that such a doctrine would re-set would be horrifying. When you allow the government to regulate media on the radio, why not TV? Why not the internet? In addition, exactly what information would the government consider forcing us to watch/listen to. Would the government force a Republican, pro-government talk show to interview a 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Would we hear that "other side"?

Irrelevant. There is already a plethora of fact that disproves that common misconception. Laziness contributes to our fellow countrymen not knowing a basic fact such as who attacked us on September 11th. In addition, this does not, in any way, justify censorship nor does it justify government control over the media. It is not up to the government, ethically and especially Constitutionally to provide a forum/arena for debate.
Doc, you're losing me here. Exactly how does government control and censorship of media strengthen the First Amendment? Yes, media outlets ownership is concentrated, and...the people and market, evidently don't seem to care. People watch Fox News, CNN and MSNBC, they read the NY Post and Boston Herald. The market has made a decision; those who support this doctrine seek to undermine the market's choice under the guise of what is "best for all of us". Let's let "all of us" make that decision for ourselves.
I fail to see how an increase in government control over the media will result in an expanding of the average American's attention span.

CP

1. Y'know, it's odd that not one of the self-identified libertarians or conservatives posting in this thread mentioned what Nebraska29 hit on: these aren't "conservative" airwaves or "Clear Channel" airwaves. These are the public airwaves and there is no balance of viewpoints on the radio dial. The public airwaves belong to the public, but what's pumping out of the speakers is a one-sided "debate." It's right-wing radio all the time and I really don't see any reason for it. The public isn't all conservative and it isn't all liberal, but from all the Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Dennis Miller, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham that comes blaring out of the radio stations here in Columbus, you'd sure think conservatives run the world. Or at least that's the only perspective America should be hearing.

2. Nope. How is presenting more choices bad for the consumer? On television if you don't like what's on CNN or MSNBC, you can switch over to Fox. That option isn't available on a lot of radio stations in markets like the one I'm living in. It's either NPR or the classic rock station playing "Stairway To Heaven" for the zillionth time. This isn't a life preserver being throw to the "Air America" network. I rarely listened to Air America when it was broadcast in Columbus. I found Al Franken boring and Sam Seder and Janeane Garafolo way too strident.

Plus, my complaint about liberal radio is the same one I have with conservative radio. It's just another outlet for White males to bump their gums and there is little to no racial diversity in either format. Where are the Black voices? Where are the Hispanics? Where are the Asians? Where are the women? Where are the gays and lesbians? Break up the status quo and tell the White guys to share the mic.

3. Sure, why not? Who says the only viewpoints presented have to break along the traditional conservative/liberal divide? Invite the socialists, communists, Green Party and the libertarians to get in on the fun. It baffles me how people whom proclaim they love freedom want to keep the discussion limited to the same tired old perspectives by the usual suspects.

If right-wing radio is trulythe preferred format of radio listeners, then why is it so scared on another point of view being presented? Put it to the test. If in a head-to-head battle, Rush Limbaugh crushes Ed Schultz, so be it. Let the marketplace decide---the marketplace of ideas, that is.

I was watching the Live Earth concert the other day on TV. I believe we need to balance this with a televised Save our SUVs concert. The fact is radio stations are playing what the public wants, as measured by the ratings. Liberal radio does not draw an audience. Therefore, few liberal talk radio programs. Liberals realize that for profit radio stations would be forced to eliminate conservative talk radfio programs because for every hour of conservative talk radio they would have to broadcast an hour of money losing liberal talk radio. The Faireness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment. What was that line liberals once used ? Something about defending your right to espouse views they disagree with.

The fact is the visual media is highly biased to the left. There is no conservative equal to Michael Moore. If you want liberal talk radio then turn the dial to the stations playing it.



From:
Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair
by Adam Thierer
Executive Memorandum #368

.



"The main thing is the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of [its Watergate coverage]. They have a television station...and they are going to have to get it renewed."

--President Richard Nixon

And the public has decided that they want to listen to Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Laura Ingrams. The market [of which the "public" is a part of] has made its choice, Nighttimer. The Fairness Doctrine undermines that choice. In addition, and as I've said elsewhere, I would like to see all forms of media privatized, due in some part to the fact that private radio channels would serve as another deflection [other than the First Amendment] of government power against the press. The Fairness Doctrine infringes on free speech, seems to me as though that is all one should need to know to be against it.

This is a strawman, Nighttimer. No one is scared of oppposing views. Our argument is that the marketplace has decided that conservative talk radio is what it wants and supporters of the Fairness Doctrine are essentially saying that the market's choice is all well and good, but they know what is a better choice. I have no dog in this fight, I don't like Rush Limbaugh any more than I do Ed Schultz, I simply respect the choice of the market. In addition, it isn't a matter of "if" right-wing radio is the choice of radio listeners...It is the preferred format, hence the popularity of the aforementioned right-wing pundits and the relative obscurity of liberal individuals.

CP

O.K., I gave a bad example. I was trying to address the fact that when Clear channel decided to cut Stern, it had a profound effect. And yes, you are correct, the number isn't 90%. I would argue that Stern's treatment was indeed profound. It's important as it shatters two myths which conservatives hold dear about any possible "fair" legislation regarding the airwaves. Stern was hugely popular, he draws a massive audience and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Second, Stern's case shows that it's politics, not popularity or market that determines air time on Clear channel. There is a market for left wing talk, or even weird talk which I think Stern is, but it isn't about pulling down market share. It's about pulling down advertisers. As long as you have money, you could put on any talk radio hosts you wanted(left or right) and call it good.

They do discrminate against leftist views. They gave Stern the axe after some alleged "indecency" though they forgot to pull the plug on two nail two more radio hosts for indecency. Keep in mind these two incidences occured after they suposedly adopted a "no tolerance" rule.

Hypocritical Clear channel example #1



Hypocritical Clear channel example #2


Linkity, link-link.


Stern got drilled because he was in several large markets and could hurt Bush negatively. The issue of popularity and market demand obviously played no role in this, I seriously doubt anyone is going to argue that Stern can't pull in numbers.



Stern Salon article.

If you are going to enforce "decency" standards, be consistent, er...uh....fair about it.

The airwaves belong to the public at large and are granted on loan to private companies who are charged through the FCC to observe certain standards. One of those standards should be fairness in programming. Once again, there is a structural imbalance in programming and the fairness report clearly shows there is a lop-sided advantage to conservatives. Once again, Stern's treatment once he began to be negative about Bush led him to be cut off Clear channel, which while it doesn't own 90% of the market(sorry Blackstone) it does have a significant voice in key states(i.e.-Pennsylvania, etc from the link)

Progressive radio does fare well, at least it did in Ohio before Clear channel changed the format and the change caused the station to tank. Boortz and Dr. Laura weren't enough to hold the ratings the progressive talk had, let alone, have the station be a success. So now it's an ESPN satellite link format that will tread water.

I have to ask- when you have a pretty clear monopoly on radio, and only broadcast one ideology- what is the difference between what the conservative media is doing here and what Chavez is doing in Venuzuela? I mean, the practical effect is the same- they both suppress any content that does not conform with thier ideology.

Nebraska hit pretty good on the way Clear Channel, a major Bush supporter censors anything that is anti-bush that gets any play- like with the Howard Stern example- pretty clear that it wasn't decency standards- it was his anti-Bush comments.

It would be different, if me, as a private citizen, could simply go buy the equipment needed to open a radio station, and broadcast whatever view I see fit- but that isn't th reality- the licensing costs far more than the equipment, and the corporate behemoth that is conservative radio will be sure to keep their monopoly and ensure I never make it onto the air.

What you have is a stifling of desent as much as any tin pot dictator in the end result.

There is really no radio I can tune into except SOME NPR that is anywhere near balanced, much less "libertarian".

If I can't find a single radio station that carries any talk radio besides conservative talk radio- where is this free market you speak of?

And blackstone- up here- it is 100% conservative radio- there is NO disenting voice- at all.

If dissent were stifled, CR, Ed Schultz, Lynne Samuels, Stephanie Miller and Rhandi Rhodes wouldn't be on air. To answer your question, the differences are: A: Dissent isn't stifled and B: The people who make up the talk radio market are overwhelmingly in favor of conservative talk radio. If they wanted liberal talk radio, Air America would have been a success. If they wanted fair and balanced radio, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'll say it again, the market has made it's choice. You can disagree with that choice, that's fine, but actively working to undermine it is not.

That's a complete hyperbole, CR. There are plenty of liberal talk show hosts who are doing quite well because their market approves of them. As I mentioned: Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz, Lynne Samuels, Rhandi Rhodes, Juan Williams, Ron Reagan Jr., etc. etc. Liberal radio is out there, and the reason why it is out there is that it is supported in some media markets.

CP

Okay Pat- come on up here and let's open a libertarian radio station. I will put up the money for the equipment and let's see if we are allowed on the air.

When the licensing for a thing costs WAY more, in fact, makes it cost prohibitive for the average person- costs WAY more than the actual equipment to do this- it isn't a free market, and dissent is stifled.

Like with the medical system in America that tries to mask itself in capitalism, but is really a corporatist kleptocracy, radio is anything but free.

There is such thing as a free press, in that I can buy a press, and make a newspaper, as long as my money holds out- there is no cost prohibitive licensing.

but I can not do the same with Radio, or TV for that matter- and, in the end, it is no different than Chavez if the goverment says I can't do it.

I can turn the dial all day up here and not find one liberal host, unless they are somehow buried in such a wierd time slot to ensure I never am able to listen to it.

You have a choice of music, or right-wing talk radio here, and there is no competition allowed.

And CP- Howard Stern is the perfect example of this.

In order for a libertarian talk radio station to be economically feasable there needs to be more libertarians. They need to get more than three out of every thousand votes. Until then libertarians must rely on the internet and other sources to express their views. Neil Boortz is basically a libertarian and he ain't in Rush's league with viewers and no government agency should force equal time. That ain't libertarian. The fact is the fairness doctrine would probably eliminate the small libertarian presence on talk radio as stations balance the liberal (socialist) versus the conservative view points. Can you give me examples of libertarian radio duringt the era when the fairness doctrine was active?

I am still waiting on the broadcast of the Save our SUVs concert.

How much time must stations allot to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nation of Islam to Al-Queda and the Drunks for Killing Muslims?

"The main thing is the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of [its Watergate coverage]. They have a television station...and they are going to have to get it renewed."

--President Richard Nixon

Not to mention the progressive station in Ohio that had great ratings, only to be replaced by "The Source" advice radio that subsequently went right down the tubes. Very telling about that. Liberal radio would more than make the cut in states that have more than 5 electoral votes.

Alaska is by far the most libertarian minded state in the Union. It would do well here, well enough, that had I access, I would bet my own money on it enough to open up a station with libertarian talk radio programs. And I have been in the entertainment business long enough to know some personalities that could convey it real well.

I just can't get around the clear channel monopoly- in fact, nearly no one can, even in music. They have been gobbled up pretty hard core here.

There is another point that CR inadvertently hit on. Who says that it would be "fair" if only conservative and liberal views are represented? How about libertarians, socialists, communists, fascists, anarchists, progressive liberals, classical liberals, maoists, trotskyists, leninists, left-libertarians, monarchists, and religious fundamentals? Are we to now make the moral judgment that only 2 viewpoints should be aired in order to be "fair?" These are the moral dilemmas that one encounters when you have the government try to make subjective and arbitrary decisions on what is "right" or "fair." I have no problem with there being an effort to present opposing viewpoints on radio. I DO have a problem with the government telling someone what they can and cannot air. The argument that these are "public" airwaves is the height of contradictory. By implementing the fairness doctrine, you are taking the decision of what plays out of the hands of the public and put it squarely into the hands of a few politicians.

I think the real problem, and why the fairness doctrine was implemented- is that NO dissenting voices are allowed in this monopoly- much like a state controlled media- which, to some degree, we are, considering the access is limited by regulation to only major money players- when the equipment is quite cheap, comparitively.

We decry other nations elections when no party but one has access to the media- and the fairness doctrine is out to combat this- If Slobodon owns all the radio stations, and won't allow a show that critisizes him, how is that so different from what we have now?

I had just wished they didn't "deregulate" the radio media at all anyway- it just allows monopolies anyway.

There is a difference between "not allowed" and "not profitable." Air America is a perfect example. It was a strong push from progressive liberals who wished to bring a different viewpoint to the radio. It did not succeed. It's not as if there was some conspiracy to why they failed, the ratings just weren't there. That's the market at work, its not the oppression of a dissenting voice. The comparison to a state-controlled media is faulty.

A libertarian named Stern recently addressed this. If the public airwaves are in fact public then why can't you can I get a radio station, or TV station without getting an FCC license first? How much do you suppose a TV station license costs? Public. No, not really. The fact that you think it's free to get radio or TV doesn't mean it is or that it's really controlled by the public.
This is a really odd sentiment you shoe-horned into this discussion. Suffice it to say there are plently of women, blacks, hispanics and gays on all sorts of radio & TV formats. To suggest they're not is silly.
You and I have no disagrement here.

CR:
Leder hit on most of the points I was going to make, but, allow me to comment:
Of course we wouldn't be allowed on the air. We're two nobody libertarians with no experience in punditry. This proves nothing. Now, if we were well known libertarians with credentials, we may be allowed on the air, depending on whether or not the broadcaster/station believes we will be profitable. That's how the market works.

It absolutely is a free entity. What will make it less free is, incidently, allowing the government to regulate content, which is exactly what the fairness doctrines does. Leave the market alone, it has made its decision.

CR, you don't have the right to listen to liberal talk radio. If you cannot find any, that is because the market you in is heavily conservative and as such demands conservative talk, which the broadcasting companies supply them. You have no right to listen to whatever you want to on demand.

Alaska is the most libertarian state in the Union? You folks sure have a strange way of showing it. Lisa Murkowski and Ted Stevens...Looks to me like it is a conservative state. I would be willing to bet that New Hampshire is more libertarian. All of this however, strays from the point. If libertarian talk seemed profitable to broadcasters, a libertarian would be on air [do you guys not get Larry Elder up there, he's nationally syndicated]. Forcing the market to do something based on what you would like is not, in any way, fair. And as Leder put it, there is a distinction to be made between competition being banned and not profitable. The difference is that banned [in the Chavez way you are describing] is done against the will of the market where as not being profitable is a RESULT of the market's preference.

On edit: What's with the double post eh?

CP

this is both to you and CP- I hear what you are saying- but if it were truly just "not profitable"- I would agree- but, then how do you explain the Howard Stern thing?

If the market really were free, and ratings were the reason- I would be right there with you- but, it is NOT free- Howard Stern was clearly let go for his anti-GW remarks, as pointed out.

Howard Stern is VERY popular , and VERY profitable. In fact, far more profitable than ANY right wing talk show host- bar none.

Our recollections of history must be different. I do not remember Howard Stern being let go because of any anti-Bush remarks. He left because the mafioso at the FCC would regularly censor his show and he became disillusioned with it. He couldnt say or do the skits he wanted to so he went to a medium where he was free.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, leder, that's the same recollection I have. Stern was let go because of his "indeceny" [as defined by the government, the same people who gave you the fairness doctrine], not because he was anti-Bush.

CP

Curously timed then- didn't get let go until after his anti-GW rants. Been indecent for years and years.

CR, he left after he signed an ungodly large contract with Sirius Sattelite radio, he wasn't forced out due to anti-Bush commentary, that is simply not true. He was given an absurd amount of money because...there was/is a market for him.

CP

Sorry CR, you're totally wrong. In fact, the heat was on long before he went against the Iraq war. The truth is he changed his mind on Bushco precisely because the FCC was hammering him. Lest we forget it was under Clinton's term Stern got hit the hardest. That, of course, had nothing to do with Clinton. I'm simply pointing out that the FCC couldn't care less about who's in office. Especially when it came to Howard Stern.

Couldn't. disagree. more. Conservpat. The public hasn't decided they want to listen to Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham. The media conglomerates like Clear Channel have decided for them. I know this because here in Columbus we had a progressive radio station that carried Air America, Stephanie Miller, Lionel, Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes, among others and Clear Channel decided to change the format to a sports and conservative talk format. Out went the progressives and in came Laura Ingraham, Bill O' Reilly, Michael Savage and Jim Rome on sports (which is the only one I don't mind).

Since the station dumped progressive talk for more right-wing radio (there is a sister station which already brodcasts Limbaugh, Hannity, Drudge and local hosts that are conservatives) their ratings which were never strong, only became worse. It lost 60% percent of its audience and is now dead last in the ratings.

And the argument that the marketplace has spoken and the conservatives won is bogus. I DO have a dog in this fight as someone who has demonstrated and signed petitions and supported a boycott of Clear Channel stations until they include some liberal/progressive views in their programming. Here is a list from TALKERS magazine, the journal of talk radio, of the top 250 talk show personalities and Ed Schultz is number five.

You can peddle that talking point about how "the marketplace has decided" somewhere else, because if you are a radio station that drops a radio host that's Number #5 (Schultz) for Number #15, (O'Reilly), that is both bad programming and bad business.

The idea that people have voted with their radio dials for right-wing radio is a myth. The game is rigged.

– In the spring of 2007, of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9 percent was progressive.

– Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk — 10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.

– 76 percent of the news/talk programming in the top 10 radio markets is conservative, while 24 percent is progressive.

radio report

91% conservative versus 9 % progressive radio programming is just the marketplace talking? Wow. How does a liberal EVER get elected if radio listeners vote along the same lines of the political slant of the radio they're being force-fed.

Oh, and before anyone suggests the authors of the report are calling for a return of The Fairness Doctrine, I'll save you the trouble: They aren't.

Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains:

Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management. […]

Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market.

Whenever some politician or special interest group tries to sell the line of crap that deregulation of a industry creates more choice and diversity, you can bet that what you'll end up with is the exact opposite.



There's nothing odd about the dearth of people of color and diverse voices on the radio AND television networks, BaphometsAdvocate. If you check that list I provided from TALKERS magazine you won't find many Black women, Asians or Hispanics and only a handful of Black males included.

It does NOT "suffice it to say there are plenty of women, Blacks, Hispanics and gays on all sorts of radio and TV formats." The suggestion that they are is what should be considered "silly."

"We found that women and people of color control just one-eighth of the country's full-power radio stations despite comprising two-thirds of the population," said S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press and author of Off the Dial: How Media Consolidation Diminishes Diversity on the Radio. "These results are stark and a cause for alarm. The FCC should be aware of the consequences before enacting any policies that could further media concentration."

As the FCC considers eliminating longstanding media ownership limits, Off the Dial exposes how these changes could hasten the disappearance of the few female- and minority-controlled stations on the radio. On a national teleconference today, FCC Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps blasted the agency's pro-consolidation policies for pushing out female and minority owners.

"This study presents fresh and challenging evidence about the lack of female and minority ownership in the radio industry," Commissioner Copps said. "My fervent hope is that we can harness the shame of our failures and recommit ourselves to creating a media that reflects the diversity of the American people."

"Women and people of color have been left off the dial because the FCC has pursued policies that are far off the mark," said Commissioner Adelstein. "It is our legal and moral obligation to promote diversity in the public airwaves. But as this landmark report shows, misguided policies have concentrated radio station ownership in a few hands and denied two-thirds of the American people an opportunity to serve the needs of their communities. The Commission needs to thoroughly study this report and develop a comprehensive strategy to remedy this injustice."

Off the Dial found that the average local radio market has 16 white male-owned radio stations — but just one female-owned station and two-minority owned stations. Women own just 6 percent of all full-power radio stations, even though they comprise 51 percent of the population. People of color own just 7.7 percent of stations but make up 33 percent of the population.

Radio lacks diversity

Sounds to me like Females and listed minorities are just much smarter about how they spend their money. AM/FM radio is dying almost as fast as Newspapers.

However, I didn't realize we were talking about ownership. When listing the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage - when discussing "hearing the voices" - I assumed - incorrectly - that we were talking about on air talent.

Still, Air America crashed and burned. Yet you persist in the notion that Liberals/Progressives want to hear and see their viewpoints. Apparently they do not. Seems they like to mkae up their own minds. So who will all these Liberal Progressive show hosts reach? How is that NPR and PBS do so poorly when they are very clearly on the Left? My guess would be that the Liberal Progressive listening isn't there. They're out voting apparenlty - they're just not listening for who to vote for.

Really? According to your own link, Hannity is #2, Savage is #3 and Laura is #4; all of whom are behind, you guessed it, Rush Limbaugh at #1. The people have spoken, they like Rush, Sean, Laura and Mike. Rush has 13.5 million listeners weekly, 13.5 MILLION. To say that the market hasn't made a choice is absurd. Hannity has 12.5 MILLION, Savage, 8.25 and Schlessinger with 7.75. To say the market hasn't made a choice is absurd.

So a corporation made a choice that the market did not approve of and suffered for it...The market is a beautiful thing.

Uh, Nighttimer, that link leads to a rank of the most "important" political talk show hosts...A subjective analysis, not an objective one. Here is an objective analysis from the very same "Talkers Magazine" which ranks hosts by their audience size: LINK
Ed Schultz has a listenership of 2.25 million people per week, putting him well behind conservative powerhouses Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Ingraham and Schlessinger and behind second tier conservatives such as Glenn Beck and O'Reilly. Hell, Schultz is tied with your boy, Don Imus . So yes, dumping Schultz [2.25 million per week] for O'Reilly [3.25 million per week] makes a lot of sense. 1 million more viewers is, in fact, better than 1 million less.

This assumes that different people are listening to each show. In reality, the same people who are listening to Limbaugh are most likely listening to Savage, O'Reilly and the others. Essentially, the market is limited to a certain group of people whereas the electorate obviously is a significantly broader segment of the population. In addition, it also assumes that all of those listening to conservative talk are conservatives.

Right. If history's taught us anything, it's that the greatest way to create choice, diversity and to strengthen the press, is through government control and regulation...

CP

Ya don't think government is a monopoly? I guess if ya in a state of civil war it may not be. Ya don't think incumbants will attempt to use the so-called fairness doctrine to entrench their positions of power? I got some ocean front property in Arizona.

I'll supply the Nixon quote again.

"The main thing is the Post is going to have damnable, damnable problems out of [its Watergate coverage]. They have a television station...and they are going to have to get it renewed."

--President Richard Nixon

I suggest if liberals think Clear Channel is the problem that they buy it. $37.90 a share at this time.

So if they aren't "public" airwaves. Whose airwaves are they? Corporations like Clear Channel and Sinclair?



Then why (supposedly) are so many conservatives turing to radio to air their views? Are those millions listening to Rush aware they're part of a dying medium?



Ah yes, conservatives love to hold out AirAmerica as the unsuccessful example that cancels out the successful ones. Conservative talk shows fail all the time. Air America has emerged from bankruptcy and is still broadcasting. G. Gordon Liddy, Lucianne Goldberg, Mike Gallagher, and the Rush Limbaugh TV show are just a few examples of right-wing programming crashing and burning.

I do suggest that Liberals/Progressives want to hear and see their own viewpoints reflected. And the non-commercial formats of National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System don't make for a good comparison with commerical radio and television networks.

But if liberals and progressives like to make up their own minds as you suggest, BA, does that conservatives do not?



Oh, so by your criteria, Transformers must obviously be a far superior movie to Bruce Willis in Live Free or Die Hard because Transformers made $67 million at the box office this weekend and Live Free only pulled down $17 million. Your numbers tell a story about popularity more than anything else, CP. Do they factor in what percentage of their television audience follows Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly to the radio?




I'd rather break Clear Channel's stranglehold on the radio than buy it, but since you're self-described as "very liberal" then I suppose I can count on your dollars, deng?

This is a strawman, Nighttimer, I've never claimed that conservative radio is BETTER than liberal talk radio, I'm claiming [and it is simply a fact] that it is preferred by the market. So using your analogy, I'm saying that Transformers is a more popular movie because it made more money than Live Free or Die Hard [which I hear is PG 13, which is an absolute disgrace ].

Exactly! The market has decided that they like the righties better than the lefties on the radio. That's exactly the point I'm making. Now, what the Fairness Doctrine does is allow the government to say, "well, we see what the people want, but here's what's best for them"...I find the notion insulting. The people have, by your own admission, made conservative talk more "popular" than liberal talk...That is the market making it's decision, the government has no place in attempting to undermine that decision by forcing people to listen to something they do not want to listen to.

[tags in Leder]

CP

They are public airwaves. I was commenting on the contradiction that was used to argue that the airwaves should be controlled by the government because they are "public." Hence why public is in quotes. The airwaves are (to a certain degree) regulated by the market so to take the decision out of their hands in order to support their interests is contradictory.



Umm nighttimer, that is the point CP was making. Their popularity is what makes them profitable.

And I'm claiming (and it is simply a fact) that the "preference" of the marketplace was rigged from the get-go. Absent a real choice, people have "chosen" the limited option presented.

But you're right that Live Free or Die Hard being rated PG-13 IS an absolute disgrace. Who needs a politically correct John McClane? I'm still going to see it though, because Bruce Willis is my boy---even if he is a conservative.



I would agree to some extent, leder that the airwaves are already controlled by the government because they provide the licensing, bandwidth and certainly to a large degree the content of what can and cannot be broadcasted on the public airwaves.

With the artifical imbalance of only one side of the debate being presented if the marketplace cannot correct this imbalance it falls to the government to intercede through mandate or regulation. I'd like to think it could happen organically in the marketplace without government intrusion.

But where's the proof Nighttimer, that the market's decision was "rigged"? Furthermore, how can you "rig" the market's decision when that decision is illustrated by audience size. So far you've given me a ranking of the most 'important' talk show hosts as determined by Talkers Magazine, I responded with the same magazine's data detailing that conservative radio is overwhelmingly more popular than liberal radio. There is nothing to back up the premise that the market's decision is "rigged from the get-go". People have made their choice and for better or worse, it is Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity and O'Reilly. Government censorship, in this case, as in most cases is simply not the right course of action and is even less so given the fact that what exactly is being censored is, as we've determined 'popular'.
Indeed, I haven't seen it yet, but have heard good things, and I always like to spend money to support fellow Jerseyans .

CP

I am against the Fairness Doctrine for the very same reasons I am in favor of abolishing the FCC completely: federal regulation or control of material broadcast over the airwaves is inherently a violation of the First Amendment. It is interesting that conservatives push for governmental regulations against what they deem to be indecent or obscene material, but God forbid the government also regulate other forms of content. I think the radio should be fully allowed to air "f***", "s***", and any other profane or obscene language (ironically censored by America's Debate). After all, the marketplace will determine what wins. As you will no doubt see, conservatives and those in favor of limited government find themselves on the contradictory end of regulatory rules when it comes to this type of language. It isn't so much the material as it is the manner in which is presented. And yes, I realize there was a Supreme Court ruling that obscene material is not covered by the First Amendment. To which I add, the Supreme Court also ruled improperly in the Plessy v. Ferguson case. The Supreme Court's decision are not always correct, and Miller v. California is just one example of the judicial branch failing to uphold the standards of constitutional law. There is no asterisk or footnote found in the First Amendment. Free speech is guaranteed and federal government may not interfere, no matter what the content.


As a rather frequent listener of Sean Hannity, I can say without a doubt that he is a douchebag who will do and say anything to earn ratings. He does not care about honesty, no matter what he claims in his pompous rants against the mainstream media. He is far more biased than the media he criticizes for being biased. He does rail against the Bush Whitehouse whatsoever. When it comes to immigration, certainly he disagrees with President Bush. But he is hardly a bipartisan critic. I would argue that Bill O'Reilly is far more "balanced" than Hannity. But that's a bit like saying President Reagan is better than President Bush.

So because every fringe group is not represented currently, we can allege that it won't happen in the future in order to justify the 91% conservative tilt in talk radio, right? Yes, communist, anarchists, maoists, leninists, and even John Birchers would be given time in a given community to air their views. So every time Michael Savage makes inappropriate comments about homosexuals, a given station would allow a group to reply, as they constitute the public that own the airwaves and that deserve equal time. Yes, the John Bircher, Westboro Baptist Phelps family, and your friendly neighborhood communist could all man the mike in the evening in order to give their views, that kind of thing should be encouraged, even required to happen. A lot of this wouldn't have to be about party politics. Anti-abortion protestors, anti-war advocates, and others are given free time on Publicly owned stations to have their own shows and to argue for what they believe in. Privately owned stations that use the airwaves complimentary of the public at large, should reflect the given geographical groups and interests that are out there.

This is a distortion of what the fairness doctrine is, CP. The FCC would neither determine who (in a personal sense) would be on the air, or even when. So Rush can quit the hysterics.(link)



This is just false, as the quote above references. The government isn't regulating content in this instance (though certainly the FCC has in the past as regards obscenity and indecency).


Usually you are above such slippery slope arguments CP. We had the fairness doctrine in some form for between 40 and 60 years, much of that with TV in the picture (I'll grant you the internet wasn't at the time).


It is hardly irrelevant. I will grant you that laziness provides a robust engine for retaining wildly inaccurate conclusions regarding issues of the day. However, I've already said that restoring the Fairness Doctrine is only one part of the solution. Frankly, I'd like to see a decent debate on what the remainder of the solution looks like. I have some ideas but they haven't been hashed out yet.

I disagree regarding the governments responsibility for debate. The First Amendment was created for this very purpose. The founders knew that a vigorous discussion and examination of the issues of the day was the strongest deterrent to tyranny. You probably agree with that as well. Where we differ is how that debate is obtained. I don't want the government to force feed specific content any more than you do. But if corporations are acquiring broadcast licenses on OUR public airwaves, I do think the government has a role to play in ensuring that the marketplace of ideas isn't monopolized by single or few entities. That is the state of affairs in the media today. The rabid deregulation of the FCC during this present administration is partly to blame for this.

What you call concentrated, I call a monopoly (or very near to it). Here's a rather prescient quote from 1927: (same link as above)

Where the Fairness Doctrine can provide a remedy is in ensuring that variety of viewpoint is consistently available. And can we dismiss the censorship label please? This isn't censorship, quite the opposite. Specific content isn't removed because of its nature. The FCC will simply tell Clear Channel that they have to provide some semblance of balance in their programming. How they achieve that is still Clear Channel or Sinclair's choice. This is a classic case where economic freedom and political freedom collide. Unless you're willing to break up media monopolies (which I doubt), then you have to add the government as an arbiter to ensure that the marketplace of ideas doesn't become monopolized as well.

It won't, nor did I say that would remedy this issue. But if some balance of those sound bytes can be fostered, you've at least stepped up the quantity of the dialogue. As I've mentioned previously, I'm not presenting the Fairness Doctrine as a panacea for our current groupthink on a lot of political issues, but I think returning to it in a responsible fashion might offer a start of reversing that trend.

Not specifically, or as you put in, not in 'a peronsal sense', but yes, the government does have a degree of control over who is on the radio [meaning, the content]. By now allowing a given radio show from having conservative content on 100% of the time, the government effectively determines who cannot be on the air when it is "liberal time". As said, it is a more sophisticated and perhaps subtler form of censorship.

Of course they're regulating content. That's the point. So that a given radio show doesn't CONTAIN 100% conservative views, the government is ensuring that liberal CONTENT is included in each show. As for the FCC, I believe that it should be abolished.

Is the question of "what precedent are we setting in allowing gov't to regulate content on radio" not a legitimate one, Doc?

And, incidently, we've also had the government attempt to regulate each medium that has come out since then. Radio, TV, internet, etc. The government has made an attempt to reign in free speech in all mediums. That's my point. Once you begin to let government regulate speech, stopping it becomes harder.