Fariness Doctrine...

[samayam]

Kerry joins 'Fairness Doctrine' chorus
Also wants to bring back equal-time provisions
Posted: June 27, 2007
10:28 a.m. Eastern


? 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. (Photo: NBC 'Meet the Press')
John Kerry openly stated his support of the overturned "Fairness Doctrine" that required broadcasters in America to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance."

The Federal Communications Commission overturned the rule in 1987 because it failed to accomplish its purpose of encouraging more discussion of controversial issues. More notably, concerns were raised over the constitutionality of the doctrine because many believed it violated First Amendment free speech rights.

"I think the fairness doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back," he said on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC.

Kerry's remarks can be heard in a recording posted by the Drudge Report.

"These are the people that wiped out ? one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye," Kerry argued.

(Story continues below)


Kerry also favored reinstating the Equal Time Rule, which requires television and radio stations to allocate equal airtime to political candidates.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, recently introduced in Congress a plan to revive the Fairness Doctrine.

Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said this week she is considering the possibility of bringing it back.

"Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact ? because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side," said Feinstein in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. "And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."


__________
You have got to be fvcking kidding me.

If more people wanted to listen to more liberal raido, then there would be a demand for it, and there would be a reason to have it, and people would listen to it. Its pretty fvcking simple.
If not, then we dont need it. It's nothing personal, just dont try to shove something down my throat, John Kerry.

If Kerry is right, then we need to have an equal amount of libertarian radio stations too then, beacuse there are millions of americans who identify themselves as libertarians, right? I am one, I want more libertarian radio Kerry, can you make it a law for me please??

And communists, we have plenty of them around (I know, because there are plenty on Madjacks -zing-), and anarchists too-they deserve a voice even though they dont really want one.

Everybody deserves a shot in the radio business, your right John-thanks for looking out for me, thanks for telling me what I need to have the option to listen to, I really appreciate it-you jackass.



I dont even know how to react to this kind of rediculious shit. I am sorry, but come one.

Does anyone here actually support such an idea?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

This is an interesting topic--especially for from all these freedoms of rights whiners.

Their prob is no one wants to listen to their pessimistic whining -eg cable news ratings bottom feeders-- talk radio lifespan before bankrupcy a couple years at most--and this is with the Soro's ect shoveling in funds to boot.

So whats their only solution--appears they are taking a page from Chavez's playbook--.

Will it happen--maybe If you got Dem Pres next election and gained 9 more seats they could pass it--would it stick--I doubt it--would prob see civil war that would last about 10 hours

 

[Spytheweb]

Here in Las Vegas there's no left wing radio

Here in Las Vegas there's no left wing radio

if it were, i would listen to it. Good thing there is Sirius satellite radio. On Sirius, you have both left and right wing, it's only fair.

 

[Skulnik]

Maybe ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC could fire 37% of their liberal reporters, it would only be fair.

 

[Chadman]

Ok, so for talk radio, it's right wing popular because there are so many listeners and not because there are a handful of big corporations buying up stations and putting the big righty talkers on - sometimes to the detriment of the station's bottom line to keep the message out there? And listeners don't have to pay for it, and it is in fact public airwaves that have long been monitored for appropriateness, fairness and the public good?

But, when it comes to newspapers, it's a left wing conspiracy and those same people who choose to subscribe and pay money for the papers are just choosing to keep paying for a message they don't actually believe in?

I mentioned an Oxy-moronical situation last week, and this one actually might top it. The spin-meisters are in high gear on this issue, but the facts just don't add up. I notice Wayne mentions Soros' money propping up liberal talk radio interests, but I've yet to see him respond to my point about Murdoch PAYING cable networks for years to carry Fox News - and taking credit for the "listenership and exposure" Fox News had on so many of those same stations he merely paid to get the message out on. And now he wants to buy The Wall Street Journal? I'm sure there won't be any change in THAT editorial format, right?

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

I've heard some interesting takes on the liberal radio issue and I'll try to recall them below.

1. Political talk radio is mainly affirmation radio. The majority of listeners are there to have there beliefs confirmed and it really isn't much more than that.

2. Liberal listeners tend to listen to conservative radio vs liberal formats because they tend to be looking for debate versus affirmation.

3. If there really was a demand for liberal radio, it would be available.

I don't know if it is necessarily correct, but it makes sense. I'm liberal and a big fan of Franken, but not a democrat, and I had a hard time fitting in Franken's show on Air America. It just wasn't that interesting.

 

[Chadman]

Thought about opening up a new topic for this article, but thought it was more on point for this discussion. Despite what some say here about most people wanting to hear conservative talk radio, do you really believe that 91% of Americans who listen to the radio - and that audience makes up about 90% of the country each week - really only want to listen to righty talk show hosts? Is the country 91% conservative? That claim is pretty laughable, really, and glad some light is being brought to what Bush and Co. did in the early stages of taking power - naming loyal Powell Jr. in charge of FCC, who set up this imbalance as one of the first things done by this administration. Well done, cabalists.
-----------------------

The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio

By John Halpin, James Heidbreder, Mark Lloyd, Paul Woodhull, Ben Scott, Josh Silver, S. Derek Turner

June 20, 2007

Despite the dramatic expansion of viewing and listening options for consumers today, traditional radio remains one of the most widely used media formats in America. Arbitron, the national radio ratings company, reports that more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, ?a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet.? Although listening hours have declined slightly in recent years, Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006.

Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format (which includes news/talk/information and talk/personality) leads all others in terms of the total number of stations per format and trails only country music in terms of national audience share. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, the combined news/talk format is estimated to reach more than 50 million listeners each week.

As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format:

Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is 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.

A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago.

This dynamic is repeated over and over again no matter how the data is analyzed, whether one looks at the number of stations, number of hours, power of stations, or the number of programs. While progressive talk is making inroads on commercial stations, conservative talk continues to be pushed out over the airwaves in greater multiples of hours than progressive talk is broadcast.

These empirical findings may not be surprising given general impressions about the format, but they are stark and raise serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.

There are many potential explanations for why this gap exists. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand. As this report will detail, neither of these reasons adequately explains why conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves.

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.

Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data. Quantitative analysis conducted by Free Press of all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations reveals that stations owned by women, minorities, or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows.

In contrast, stations controlled by group owners?those with stations in multiple markets or more than three stations in a single market?were statistically more likely to air conservative talk. Furthermore, markets that aired both conservative and progressive programming were statistically less concentrated than the markets that aired only one type of programming and were more likely to be the markets that had female- and minority-owned stations.

The disparities between conservative and progressive programming reflect the absence of localism in American radio markets. This shortfall results from the consolidation of ownership in radio stations and the corresponding dominance of syndicated programming operating in economies of scale that do not match the local needs of all communities.

This analysis suggests that any effort to encourage more responsive and balanced radio programming will first require steps to increase localism and diversify radio station ownership to better meet local and community needs. We suggest three ways to accomplish this:

> Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.

> Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.

> Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting.
In the pages that follow, we believe our analysis of the talk radio marketplace merits serious consideration of the remedies we then present.

 

[samayam]

Ok, so for talk radio, it's right wing popular because there are so many listeners and not because there are a handful of big corporations buying up stations and putting the big righty talkers on - sometimes to the detriment of the station's bottom line to keep the message out there? And listeners don't have to pay for it, and it is in fact public airwaves that have long been monitored for appropriateness, fairness and the public good?

But, when it comes to newspapers, it's a left wing conspiracy and those same people who choose to subscribe and pay money for the papers are just choosing to keep paying for a message they don't actually believe in?

I mentioned an Oxy-moronical situation last week, and this one actually might top it. The spin-meisters are in high gear on this issue, but the facts just don't add up. I notice Wayne mentions Soros' money propping up liberal talk radio interests, but I've yet to see him respond to my point about Murdoch PAYING cable networks for years to carry Fox News - and taking credit for the "listenership and exposure" Fox News had on so many of those same stations he merely paid to get the message out on. And now he wants to buy The Wall Street Journal? I'm sure there won't be any change in THAT editorial format, right?

I dont think this was directed at me, but I will respond as if it was.
People can bitch and wine about both sides, and that is great and fair and appropriate. Rightys saying the "left wing media bias" and leftys saying "conservative radio control bias"-complain all you want.
And if you really feel that way about something, do not support it. Rightys, dont watchthe supposed "left leaning" programs or buy the "left leaning" papers
Leftys, dont listen to "right wing neocon radio" if you do not support it.

the problem is when either side-rep or dem, starts trying to legislate who can say what on what station and how much of it can be said so that it can all be "fair"

let us decide what is and isnt fair, and listen/read accordingly


and i have an honest question for chad.
are there right wingers who are moving to promote "equality and fairness" in the "left leaning" media?

 

[The Sponge]

I dont think this was directed at me, but I will respond as if it was.
People can bitch and wine about both sides, and that is great and fair and appropriate. Rightys saying the "left wing media bias" and leftys saying "conservative radio control bias"-complain all you want.
And if you really feel that way about something, do not support it. Rightys, dont watchthe supposed "left leaning" programs or buy the "left leaning" papers
Leftys, dont listen to "right wing neocon radio" if you do not support it.

the problem is when either side-rep or dem, starts trying to legislate who can say what on what station and how much of it can be said so that it can all be "fair"

let us decide what is and isnt fair, and listen/read accordingly


and i have an honest question for chad.
are there right wingers who are moving to promote "equality and fairness" in the "left leaning" media?

Just wondering here righty and lets not kid anyone here you are a neocon thinking righty as bad as they come. I was wondering if you were complaining back when this was happening?

Keith Rupert Murdoch. The ?New York Times? reporting Congress almost forced him to rein in his U.S. media empire in 2003. It was going to pass a bill that no media entity was to control more than 35 percent of the nation?s TV stations. News Corp. owned 39 percent, so Murdoch lobbyists went to work. Republicans, led by Trent Lott, promptly did Murdoch?s bidding and raised the number to 39 percent. And guess whose memoir Murdoch?s HarperCollins published? Trent Lott.

 

[smurphy]

There's no going back. The Fairness Doctrine was somewhat reasonable and enforceable in the early 19th Century. Impossible now. It is ridiculous to suggest bringing it back.

Conservatives have a huge advantage on radio, not because the majority of America agree with the crap from Savage and friends - but because it's far more entertaining than liberal radio. Liberal radio is boring. Centrist radio is boring. Neocon radio is fascinating - it draws in an audience from all sides because the commentary is so outragous and the hosts are usually so dispicable. Unfortunately, these whackos mistake their ratings for how the majority of people think.

If liberal and centrist programming can figure out how to be more alarming and entertaining then they could compete. Unfortunately, logical discussions and commentary tend to not be very exciting.

 

[samayam]

Just wondering here righty and lets not kid anyone here you are a neocon thinking righty as bad as they come. I was wondering if you were complaining back when this was happening?

Keith Rupert Murdoch. The ?New York Times? reporting Congress almost forced him to rein in his U.S. media empire in 2003. It was going to pass a bill that no media entity was to control more than 35 percent of the nation?s TV stations. News Corp. owned 39 percent, so Murdoch lobbyists went to work. Republicans, led by Trent Lott, promptly did Murdoch?s bidding and raised the number to 39 percent. And guess whose memoir Murdoch?s HarperCollins published? Trent Lott.

I am pro gay rights, pro drug legalization, and against buliding a wall, just to name a few un-neo con attributes.
Sorry that you cant throw a label on me.
Just because I dont buy into all the global warming hysteria and am an unapologetic free market capitalist..
doesnt make me a neo con.
And I think Bush is doing a terrible job.

Sorry


why should there be a law saying that any news corp. can not control a certain percent of the market. 35%, 39%-who cares.
If Ted Turner had control of 40% of the market, I wouldnt care either. Good for him. Way to go.
Maybe I am missing your point-but I am saying that there shouldnt be a law telling us which side can be in control and which one cant. Ted Turner, Murdoch, you, me-whoever does it the best, should continue to do it the best until someone can match them. And someone will match them eventually, that is the nature of demand and competition--people will get sick of Fox News (I am sick of it-and I am a "neocon" as you say), and want something else-the government doesnt have to shove it down our throats-the market will change accordingly.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Any reason why liberal radio is boring--thought they had top entertainers on Air america

--and I guess since Fox trumps all other cable news prime time--we can say liberal cable is boring?

How about this--Let america's viewers/listeners report and you decide

imo Reason people do not like liberal radio vs conservative it the glass half full vs half empty--who wants to drive home and listened to constant whining.

Just a guess--as I don't listen to radio.

 

[The Sponge]

I am pro gay rights, pro drug legalization, and against buliding a wall, just to name a few un-neo con attributes.
Sorry that you cant throw a label on me.
Just because I dont buy into all the global warming hysteria and am an unapologetic free market capitalist..
doesnt make me a neo con.
And I think Bush is doing a terrible job.

Sorry


why should there be a law saying that any news corp. can not control a certain percent of the market. 35%, 39%-who cares.
If Ted Turner had control of 40% of the market, I wouldn't care either. Good for him. Way to go.
Maybe I am missing your point-but I am saying that there shouldnt be a law telling us which side can be in control and which one cant. Ted Turner, Murdoch, you, me-whoever does it the best, should continue to do it the best until someone can match them. And someone will match them eventually, that is the nature of demand and competition--people will get sick of Fox News (I am sick of it-and I am a "neocon" as you say), and want something else-the government doesnt have to shove it down our throats-the market will change accordingly.

I guess you are basically saying we should throw out all monopoly laws. This country needs these type of laws because its stupid and that is the bottom line. They believe everything they hear on the news and especially things that are made up. To have an all right news airwaves would cripple this country because the truth isn't one of their top priorities. Now since they have a hard time bringing the truth as a platform the left is playing their game since they are falling behind. Nobody suffers but the people. This country is in a desperate need for a third party. Someone with a set of nuts who will stand up to oil companies, pharmaceuticals, and this sham of a relationship we have with Israel. In closing i don't care who owns the airwaves as long as they hold the truth as a number one priority. The right has a very hard time doing this.

 

[The Sponge]

--and I guess since Fox trumps all other cable news prime time--we can say liberal cable is boring?

How about this--Let america's viewers/listeners report and you decide

imo Reason people do not like liberal radio vs conservative it the glass half full vs half empty--who wants to drive home and listened to constant whining.

Just a guess--as I don't listen to radio.

Pro wrestling has 20 million viewers a week:shrug: . This country half don't care, a quarter are fools (Fox believer viewers, neocon nitwit radio) and a quarter that wines(your words) for the truth to be told.

 

[Chadman]

Quite simply, there is a big difference between public airwaves that are controlled by the federal government (plenty of other countries just like ours in that department) that do not charge money for the rights to use a frequency and only require providing the public with a fair overall representation of public domain issues - and print media that people pay for that can print essentially whatever they want.

This is VERY SIMPLY an ownership issue, using public airwaves to control the message. Whether you like it or not, it needs to remain public and down the middle. These corporations sign a contract to do just that, so they agree to be responsible to get the frequency.

I think its laughable to maintain that 90% of the American listening public only wants to hear FREE "interesting" conservative talk shows, and at the same time complain about print media being so dominant with a liberal message - and that message is actually being PAID for by people.

Probably the dumbest (and I don't use that word often) comparison I've seen here.

 

[gardenweasel]

There's no going back. The Fairness Doctrine was somewhat reasonable and enforceable in the early 19th Century. Impossible now. It is ridiculous to suggest bringing it back.

.

if you`d ended it there,you`d be getting kosar`s pistachios...

 

[Chadman]

if you`d ended it there,you`d be getting kosar`s pistachios...

Agreed, kind of like a payoff for keeping the truth quiet, right? Those unconvenient truths can be a real, um, "Coulter," can't they? :kiss:

 

[gardenweasel]

if it were, i would listen to it. Good thing there is Sirius satellite radio. On Sirius, you have both left and right wing, it's only fair.

"you mean conservative garbage radio is profitable and liberal talk is not? ...everyone i know voted for kerry, how could this be?"

/spy(clueless)


but take it from me,guys...relax..bottom line: it will be back, because the democrats are stalinist, castro-esque, anti-free speech nanny state moonbats...of course,the fairness doctine applies ONLY to a.m. radio.....and free speech is JUST for them.....

 

[Chadman]

but take it from me,guys...relax..bottom line: it will be back, because the democrats are stalinist, castro-esque, anti-free speech nanny state moonbats...of course,the fairness doctine applies ONLY to a.m. radio.....and free speech is JUST for them.....

Anti-free speech? How is this anti-free speech?

From Wikipedia: The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation of the United States' Federal Communications Commission (FCC) which required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in what was deemed an honest, equal and balanced manner.

Forgive me if I can't understand how that a conglomerate can buy up all the radio stations they want, using free airwaves and not paying for the right, dominate the message to the public with one consistently conservative message is somehow considered in the public interest or fair. Television stations have to give equal time and message themes for political messages, don't they?

And, the print media is completely different, as I have illustrated. So, yes, it's appropriate that this only applies to public free radio.

Remains a simple thing, in my view. And appropriate.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

That doctine was written MANY years ago Chad when people had limited media choices--not so today with 1000's of radio channells several cable news out lets.

Not hard to find radio or cable news to fit anyones political leanings--problem liberals have is no one wants to listen.

Now I will agree on Fairness Doctrine for all federally funded media--as we are the ones footing the bill. Might want to start with PBS--ya think