The fairness doctrine: is it the future or the end of talk radio?

Democrats are trying to "level the playing field," by pushing the Fairness Doctrine, and "prod[ding] local broadcast television and radio stations to renew their atrophied commitment to producing and airing their own public-affairs programming—shows that Democrats think would at least give them a chance to be heard."

So says Newsweek's Howard Fineman in a column last week. (He, as an avuncular, legacy media nabob is so prestigious he gets away with such hackneyed clichés as "leveling the playing field." We're jealous).

Fineman says Democrats are moving to require local TV to donate campaign advertising and free time for election debates as part of the stations’ “public-service” licensing requirement.

Local TV news is atrocious at covering civic affairs, and politics- the atrocity is that they simply omit them.

(hell, what's left after American Idol updates, the roadkill, and the pet-babies rescued from ventilation systems by sexy firemen?)

The focus-grouped news-as-entertainment concept has contributed greatly (along with the ball-dropping by the schools) to the public ignorance of basic civics. It's offered nothing to counter the radio audience's buying the load of weasel poop that what they're getting from the bellicose blarting of partisan talk hosts is really news.   

(This wasn't always so- we can remember, f'rinstance, when reporting on the legislature during the session comprised 25% of the 6 o'clock news on Channel 5)

Fineman points out that while local TV omits public-affairs programming, "they rake in ever-larger wads of cash on political advertising."

Money pours in to local stations from ad budgets for candidates in close hyper-partisan, local elections- a bonanza for broadcast media, particularly TV.

We agree- it's time they give something back. (Though we're holding our testicles rather than our breaths).

While getting local TV back to acting in the public interest is cool, reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is a non-starter.

Fineman writes that a new study commissioned by liberal groups finds that right-wing dominance on the radio is not only growing- it's 85% of talk radio programming.

(It may not do Democrats any good in 2008, but we'd say that in a real way, this dominance is less significant since the radio listener pie has shrunk and shrinking as the talk radio listener demo is dying off). 

Until abandoned in 1987, the doctrine required stations to make free time available for opposing views. Most of the time, station managers wouldn't bother going to the trouble and expense of providing opposition which effectively kept partisan programming off radio and TV.

When it was dumped during the Reagan era, Rush Limbaugh arrived on the scene and with his keen anima, and right of center sense of righteousness, became the bubamadre of all talk hosts. The right has dominated the medium ever since.

The right claims it's their ideological product that won in the marketplace. Truth is, it's more complicated- a poisonous slumgullion of Limbaugh's unique talents; the religious right's long tradition on the radio; conservatives' ancient resistance to television; and their long-held dogma that it's controlled by the left. Also playing a part is the risk averseness of an industry too timid to invest in much outside the lucrative status quo. Limbaugh and his big idea of making politics into entertainment saved the AM dial, and radio execs haven't been able to let go of that.

In markets such as San Francisco and Seattle where most media consumers are liberal, talk radio has thrived by the serving the conservatives among them. While the audience share may not be significant politically, it's a lucrative niche for the stations and gives a voice disproportionate to the relatively few listeners.

(The libertine left's love of nuance, ironic ambiguity, and disestablishmentarianism; their disdain of dogma, and authoritarianism hasn't exactly helped them rule talk radio).

We doubt this toothpaste can be put back in the tube, and we're not sure we'd want it to be. We still haven't seen any evidence that any Democrats other than Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the cute li'l windmill tilter out of Ohio is serious about it.

(Dennis also supports full diplomatic relations with A Land called Honalee).

Can't see that the Democrats will take on the powerful broadcasting industry who's already fretting over shrinking radio revenues.

Despite the problems of Air America, liberal talk radio is getting a foothold with individual hosts across the country.

Comments

[Recife]

I’m down with the fairness doctrine, so every time Rosie O’Donnell calls American troops terrorist, then Michael Savage gets to rebut right? You see it will work both ways, if not then law suits will reign. Yeah, shoot me now, I’m a capitalist, I believe in market forces. Why is Air America sucking hind tit? Oh let me guess, it’s some right wing conspiracy! Bullshit, their content is not in demand. I know Sparky and Joanie and Duffman will tell me that I’m in the minority, but who is paying the bills? I dunno, but it ain’t some fat lezzy with a turkey baster between her legs. Just wondering how far my first amendment rights will take me.

[Andrew]

"some fat lezzy with a turkey baster between her legs" -Recife, 2007

[EvergreenRailfan]

I am not sure if it will work. Although it is getting talked about among liberal hosts as well, they are divided. Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller seem to be leaning towards it, Hartman is against it. Now often Dave Ross has both sides of the issue on his show, not sure if the time is equal, and they are often not on at once.

[joanie]

(Dennis also supports full diplomatic relations with A Land called Honalee).

Well, Michael. Dennis is the high school geek who became the success story. You probably preferred hanging out with the "cool" dudes who ended up selling sodas down at Woolworths. Here's to intelligence, independence and integrity. Give 'em hell, Dennis.

Can't see that the Democrats will take on the powerful broadcasting industry who's already fretting over the shrinking radio revenues.

Unfortunately, I agree.

Recife, you are the perfect example of the right-wing listener. Reread yourself and learn.

I don't know if it can be put back in the bottle. Like spoiled ill-tempered, poorly-disciplined over-indulged children, we may be so far down the road of emotional reactivism and hate-mongering that there can be no return. It is really boring to be thoughtful, respectful, reasonable, reflective, learned and balanced.

And your comment about civics and schools? Pretty hard when community groups and the religious right demand white-washed and inaccurate textbooks and social studies curriculums. Blame the wonderful citizenry on the right for the poor quality of our civics classess in schools. But, who besides us old liberals really cares anyway?

[mrogi]

If the Fairness Doctrine is brought back where will they find enough right wing talk show hosts to balance the daily propaganda of: Randi Rhodes, Tom Hartmann, Lionel, Alan Colmes, Ray Taliaferro, Amy Goodman, Bernie Ward, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, Ed Schultz, Mike Malloy, Neil Rogers, The Young Turks, Sam Seder, Mike Newcomb, Lizz
Brown, Rachel Maddow, Ron Reagan Jr, Doug Basham, Jim Hightower, Bruce Burch, Jon Eliot, Duke Skorich, Peter Collins, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Lynn Samuels, Christine Craft, Bev Smith, Michael Eric Dyson, Stacy Taylor, Lynn Cullen, Jay Marvin, Ron Kuby, Mark Levine; just to name a few

[Duffman]

It's a non-event!

[Duffman]

mrogi: how does Mark Levine fit into that group?

...and if as Al Frankin expounds "You shouldn't be able to lie on the air" was the rule - you not only would do away with 'talk shows' but political rhetoric as well. [or, I guess one could say 'it all depends on what the definition of 'lie' is'] :)

[Duffman]

..excuse me mrogi; I had that confused with Mark Levin.

[joanie]

So, now there's a field of liberal hosts up the backstretch. Of course, I haven't heard of many of them . . . what did you google to get their names, Mrogi?

I could care less about liberal/conservative. In fact, I have great respect for Buchanan's take on things. Somewhere in the mix, I look for honesty and integrity. That's what the fairness doctrine means to me. The right no longer understands those words, however. For the right, it is emotion over reason: hate, hate, hate. And the right that doesn't hate is missing in action. They seem to have conceded the game to the haters in their party.

"Fairness" doctine? What could that possibly be. Is the word "fair" still in the dictionary?

[David Tatelman]

Bubamadre? Slumgullion? Michael, do you really talk this way?
:-)

[EvergreenRailfan]

It was Randi Rhodes that was leaning towards the Fairness Doctrine, I remember hearing her talk about that awhile back. Stephanie Miller is opposed, and she was talking about that a few months ago with a conservative guest, Sean Hannity!

I remember Mike Malloy mentioning during a major Middle East crisis just as the Fairness Doctrine was being abolished, he was getting called by the managers and the FCC saying he was having too much of a bias. They were more concerned being balanced Pro and Con, and not especially Liberal or Conservative.

Now instead of a Fairness Doctrine, how about Hannity and Goodman trade shows every once in a while. I remember 4 years ago he was sayiing Liberals should enjoy NPR and stay off commercial radio, that the Conservatives needed a voice to balance out NPR, Cable TV(except FOx News, of course) and the newspapers(forgetting the Wall Street Journal editorial board, of course). Well, Goodman is on 500 stations, but Hannity should learn what being on Low Power FM feels like.

[seattlejew]

Free Market Media

Recife, are you SURE you think the media should really be "free market?" Tell you what. I would trade a fairness doctrine for a law requiring maximum competition, that is ruling OUT mass ownership of media.

Also, wi/in the free market concept, why not require that media open their resource t a maximum of community npartic participation? After all, since the airwaves area limited resource, of necessity there needs to be a licensing agency .. i.e. govmnt. In that spirit, how about REQUIRING that any radio/TV station have at least 50% local content? BTW Canada has just such a law to assure that Canadian media are not dominated by U-NO-WHO. What sort of tilt do you think Seattle Radio would have (again) if it were required to eb more local?

Back at debates and ads, this seems to me to be a simple thing to do. Why wouldn't the media want this free programming?

[sparky]

What constitutes "local"? The biggest city? The largest population? The site of the station?

Because of the long range reach of the radio signal, large parts of the listening audience, we rural folks in particular, would tune out in droves unless there were issues addressed that had relevance to our lives too. Also we tend not to use the Seattle-located services from advertisers--too far to drive when we can get the same thing from our local merchants.

The Canadian content clause is not necessarily "local'..it only has to be Canadian in its production. (For instance, a classiscal music station must play a certain percentage of music performed by a Canadian orchestra. )
It still can be about national issues, just as long as it relates to something happening in Canada. There are no rules that require people in British Columbia listen only to content about BC.
American radio already does spend almost all its time on American content. One exception comes to mind and that would be Democracy Now, with Amy Goodman, who often discusses people's lives in third world countries.