Will democrats squash talk radio with the fairness doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine has no place in our First Amendment regime. It puts the head of the camel inside the tent and enables administration after administration to toy with TV or radio in order to serve its sordid or its benevolent ends. ...Under our Bill of Rights people are entitled to have extreme ideas, silly ideas, partisan ideas. The same is true, I believe, of TV and radio.
        ~~ Justice William O. Douglas

It's a fear Republicans are whispering in talk radio listeners' ears to scare them into voting Republican.

If Obama's elected, they say, and there's a Democratic House and Senate -- particularly a super majority -- the spiteful libs will bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

It ain't going to happen and if it did, we would fight it.

One reason it's not is: while there are some in Congress who'd love to punish Rush and Hannity for their dogged politicking, the Fairness Doctrine is, and always has been, opposed by Barack Obama.

Michael Ortiz, an Obama aide, told Broadcasting & Cable magazine in June, "He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," Ortiz added. "That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."

Last week, the righties jumped on the words of New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman being interviewed on 770 KKOB in Albuquerque, told host Jim Villanucci that the doctrine, in an ideal world, should be brought back.

"All I’m saying," he said, "is for many, many years [broadcast stations] were operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country. I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days that it has become since."

Last year, the House passed a bill, by Indiana Republican and former radio talker Mike Pence (R-Ind) that put a year moratorium on funding any FCC re-imposition of the doctrine.

Democrats, led by David Obey (D-Wis.), called the amendment a non-issue being debated to provide sound bites for conservative talkers and "yap yap TV." it never made it to the Senate floor.

Now using the almost wistful words of Sen. Bingaman, they've ginned up the issue once more as an election talking point to scarify listeners that Democrats will take away their radios.

Until abandoned in 1987, the FCC's 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 talk radio ever since.

Republicans were delighted, and the medium became a potent political tool providing free airtime over public airwaves for one side.

This coincided with (and helped bring on) the so-called Republican Revolution; talk radio's in its heyday provided a sound track, and a powerful campaign stump for the rancorously partisan '90's and the Bush years.

To say mainstream media is liberal and balances talk radio is ridiculous.

Nonetheless, we oppose the Fairness Doctrine.

It'd hit an industry hard which can't take any more hits. Radio isn't the pure market-driven medium that the industry and the conservatives say it is. The right-wing programming hasn't changed because of risk averse programmers, a lazy if-it-ain't-broke mentality which has sat satisfied with an age demographic now dying off.

The industry has sold off its local stations and its very soul to Wall Street who in turn has sapped its profits, and done little re-investing -- the kind that develops new talent, new ideas and new audiences.

There are plenty of progressives, women, young people -- all missing from radio audiences -- to revive the medium -- it just takes the will, local ownership, and some dough.

Swap the word 'audience' for 'voters,' and that describes the Republican Party as well. All the fatness and self-satisfaction spells some lean times for both entities.

As the big wheel keeps on turning and the left grows in power and to national consensus, there's no reason to legislate fairness, it'll come out on its own like a lost pup out of the woods.

Comments

[joanie]

I don't know if I agree. While I agree that breaking up conglomerates and supporting smaller more diverse ownership groups will help, I don't that will happen.

We've been through deregulation in the financial markets and the result was greed and corruption. It has been the same in radio.

Regulation seems to be necessary for a sane society. Why shouldn't that apply to radio as well.

I wish it didn't have to but I'm not sold.

Again, if Obama really does break up the stranglehold of big money in the communications industry generally, I'll have more reason to believe that the fairness doctrine is not needed.

Without regulation, it seems the lowest common denominator is the result. And that common denominator seems to be lower than anyone could have surmised thirty years ago...

[orcas]

There is no need for a Fairness Doctrine. Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Medved, Ingraham and a whole battalion of right wing talkers have hammered Obama for over a year. They had no effect whatsoever in shaping public opinion. Obama will be our next president. Right wing talk radio is irrelevant.

[joanie]

Have the right-wing talkers been irrelevant or is the mess Bush made of the economy just too hard to ignore?

Things should never have gotten this bad.

Can you trust people to get informed ont heir own? There's a reason for truance laws in school - not that they are much enforced. I don't see that people take the time to know what is in their own best interests. And when they don't and we get people like Bush, look what happens to all of us.

[orcas]

The concept of the Fairness Doctrine is an anachronism. It belongs to a bygone era when there were only 3 major TV networks, no Internet, and no talk radio. Today, I can sit at my laptop and just by clicking a mouse I can read hundreds of daily newspapers, listen to dozens of streaming political talk shows, watch a dozen cable news channels, visit scores of network news websites, read countless fact check sites, blogs and message boards. All of these news/info sources provide me with ideas and opinions representing every conceivable part of the political spectrum on a daily basis.

[Mary Ann]

If the Fairness Doctrine were put back in place, other points of view would be required to be broadcast on the same program.
People who are addicted to right-wing talk never go to their laptops or cable (are there any left-wing cable shows besides Olbermann and Maddow?) to hear other points of view.
If you only ever read the Bible, you'll never know what else is going on.

[Rev]

Mary Ann (above) is flat wrong about the way broadcasters would have to deal with a new Fairness Doctrine. There is no new law that would require "other points of view on the same program."

For that matter, there is no new law at all. But if something were to emerge, there's no reason to expect that it would be writen that way. It could as easily require equal time on another program, or even on another co-owned station in the same market.

But this is all fruitless conjecture. It ain't gonna happen.

[orcas]

Will the Fairness Doctrine require Air America, Jones Network and Nova M to put right wing rat bastards on their networks? If so, I am against it.

[mark]

orcas nailed it - how are you going to enforce this? It is not 1985 anymore.

It would be nice however to pull a 'taters nationally - imagine Rush and Ed Schultz going at it? or that asshole Levin mixing it up with Malloy?

and speaking of the 'taters, I like their new time slot/local content. Now if we can only give Burbank the boot and get Goldy in there...

[sparky]

Rush would have to admit there was another side to his arguments...that will never happen.

[Cyril]

Even with two houses and the presidency, no party D or R, would have the political capital to pull off a strict Fairness Doctrine like they're warning of. The old FD wasn't
draconian, at all. As long as there was news or editorials or something balanced at some time that was good enough.

[Francis Garner II]

Their day is done. It's true, talk radio hasn't done anything to curtail Obama's rise, or the Republican implosion. They moved the Congress on immigration reform, but not the poll numbers of people. It's a paper tiger anymore.

[nevets]

"or is the mess Bush made of the economy just too hard to ignore?"

Talk about being informed. Joanie where have you been the last 20 months. You know, when the Libs have had controll of both Houses. As I recall, the economy was going great til them Libs took control and passed that Minimum Wage increase. Am I the only one who see the connection.

Joanie, word of advice. Get out of that CAVE you have been living in.

[Coiler]

even you could use that min wage increase, couldn't you steven?

[KS]

Would they give the middle finger to the First amendment and legislate the Fairness Doctrine ?

You betcha - if they can get away with it..

There will still be conservative talkers on the air mixed in with liberal ones, but it would weed out the number of shows.

As for our economy, the Dem controlled congress deserves just as much blame over the last 2 years as Bush does for f***ing up the economy - in some way a little bit more. Bush - your whipping boy will only be around until Jan 21. 2009 - after that you will have to beat up on your own Democrat comrades for a bad economy.

It will get worse if BO is elected because besides his embrace of radical ideological and economic policies - BO stinks ! If you want to call these Repubican talking points, have at it - I don't give a rat's ass. Too bad many of you won't get it until it is likely too late.

[KS]

"after that you will have to beat up on your own Democrat comrades for a bad economy."

Oops, that would be too honest and straightforward and unlikely if you didn't try and blame it all on Bush for at least the next decade. As for that alibi - If it ain't broke, don't fix it..

[joanie]

It was deregulation that got us where we are. Just as it was deregulation that caused the S&L scandal.

Regulation is necessary. Maybe a necessary evil but necessary. May never be perfect but some control is necessary.

Yes, I think having Malloy and Levin go at it would be almost perfect. Then, listeners - devotees - of both would at least hear both sides. Even now, there is little prograon the right because few hosts on the left will go to the profane and corrupt extreme that seems to titillate the right in this country.

I still think the only reason right-wing talkers aren't successfully turning the electorate their way is because their own listeners are finally losing their homes, looking for work, losing thier pensions and are unable to drive their cars because they can't afford gas.

It is staring us in the face. And yet, you all still think continued/more deregulation is the answer.

And Orcas, besides the three networks, there used to be many magazines and local newspapers. It was a different time but there was access to information. It was just credible at that time. It was "information" and not "entertainment."

[joanie]

You know, klueless, you and steven should be embarrassed by the stuff you post.

[nevets]

And why should I be embarassed Joanie. All I gave were facts. Which fact do you not believe.

Libs took control of House and Senate in Jan 2007.

Libs passed the Minimum Wage increase.

DJI was 12,500 in Jan 2007

DJI today is 8,175

Unemployment rate Jan 2007 4.6%

Unemployment today 6.1%

Just the facts. Dont you see a connection here. I recall you tried blaming President Bush for 9/11 with less facts than this.

(I would put gas prices, which under a Lib House and Senate seen record highs but prices are coming down now that President Bush stepped in and allowed off-shore drilling.)

[joanie]

You are the man who cuts off his nose to spite his face. You are an idiot.

And since Al Queda hit the twin towers on 9-11 2001, it was ll Bush's fault. That would be consistent with your line of thinking. Had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton.

At least we've put that one to rest. Thank you.

[joanie]

Rereading my post, I"m fixing it!
Even now, there is little programming on the left because few hosts on the left will go to the profane and corrupt extreme that seems to titillate the right in this country.

My computer is very, very slow and sometimes the keys don't take in their proper order.

Of course, I never make mistakes! (LOL)

[nevets]

Quit changing the subject Joanie. Which of my facts are wrong?

[Coiler]

Man the crackers on here are restless tonight. Wonder what next week will bring?

[nevets]

No, my line of thinking is this.

If the Libs had not took control of the House and Senate in 2007, this country would be still going strong economically. Unemployment would still be 4.5% and the DOW would be reaching 15,000 now.

If Clinton had killed Osama when he had the chance, the Twin Towers would still be standing. No 9/11, no Afghan War. (Iraq would still have happened because Saddam Hussein continually attacked our planes (an act of war) and failed to hand over the WMD's)

But unfortunately, you cant go back in time to change it. President Clinton failed us then and the Libs failed us by recklessly passing the minimum wage increase and letting oil prices soar to $150.00 dollars a bbl.

[nevets]

"Man the crackers on here are restless tonight."

So thats how you get away with "OUR BOY" comments Coiler. I should have known.

[Coiler]

No, you are a cracker. You can't say Obama so you call him Hussein. It looks stoopid on you.

[Duffman]

Can we please dispense with the 'name-calling' all the way around...it's so junior high'ish.
Let's prepare for the new administration by acceptance of diversity...how 'bout that.

[nevets]

"even you could use that min wage increase, couldn't you steven?"

And how does this statement of yours Coiler make you look. Again that Shoreline education is failing you.

[sparky]

So, you're taking back your comment about "judge and jury as always"?

[Coiler]

I never went to Shoreline as mentioned previously. Are you from Maple Valley?

[EvergreenRailfan]

I noticed a few good international examples of talk radio, that had interesting roots. In Canada, there is only one Nationwide, live, open-line call-in show, Cross Country Checkup on the CBC, not sure if there are any among the corporate media up there. Cross Country Checkup started in the mid-1960s to get public views on an emerging National issue, healthcare, hence it's medical-sounding name.

BBC Radio Ulster started a show called Talk Back in 1986, as a sounding board for people caught on both sides of the IRA violence in Belfast. Today it is still on the air. Seems it can bring people together. I occasionally listen to podcasts of the CBC program, find it interesting. Only once or twice did I see somebody call in and really say things about the opposition like our hosts do. (That particular caller was talking when the host had the now-outgoing Liberal Party leader on pitching his campaign's platform) Also, they take the caller's full name, unlike our hosts, probably prevents too much inflammatory responses.

Not all of our nationally syndicated hosts, whether liberal or conservative, are live across the country. Some are pre-recorded. The logistics of someone doing a weekday program in Canada on the lines of our talk radio, is almost impossible, across their 5 time zones.(Newfoundland, Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Mountain, and Pacific).

[joanie]

If you want more civility and information/even-handed opinion in talk radio, there are ways to get it. But not without regulation of some sort.

There is always a way. That's what made this country the great country it used to be.

[EvergreenRailfan]

I listen to podcasts of KKGN in San Francisco, and their local program, gets callers asking why they are running ads for Prop. 8, the Gay Marriage ban amendment. The host responds, that they have to, if they want to buy the airtime, they have to sell it. Explains why KPTK has ads for Prop.1 then. Too bad Move On. org does not have enough to buy ads on Limbaugh during the election season. Also, Stephanie Miller, who is opposed to the Fairness Doctrine, gives those who don't agree with her priority, and she had a lively one last Friday. First the guy accused the screener of "Pretty much calling him a moron", and then he was saying all the Savage and Limbaugh talking points while accusing Stephanie of trying to cut him off. He seemed unstable.

The screener did explain she did imply the guy was a moron, when she said that "Of course we take dissent, but do you even know what it means?", as a response to the guy saying he would not get on. That was funny.

In the old days, there was some material that some stations would not put on, such as the infamous speech on behalf of an opponent of Scoop Jackson that Joe McCarthy was going to make. KING 5 at the time took their job seriously, and before they allow somebody on the air making political speeches, they wanted to see the script in advance to avoid inflammatory remarks getting on the air. Senator McCarthy was going to be on for 15 minutes, the campaign had bought that much for $300.(A lot of money at the time) They found some remarks that were too inflammatory, and crossed them out. McCarthy and his people got in an argument, and almost got Senator Magnusson to defend him.(He was there to deliver the rebuttal). Then again, there were regulations in those days requiring the rebuttal to be there. BOth sides of the story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KING-TV#The_Early_Years

[joanie]

Then again, there were regulations in those days requiring the rebuttal to be there.

End of story.

Except, Ed Schulz does not screen calls either. He takes from both sides. Still, few people listen to those with whom they disagree. I find Rush and Hannity anathema and couldn't listen for long because I've tried. I don't like lies, smears, and distractions. I'm smart enough to know them when I hear them.

Some people thrive on emotional me-isms and hate. Hate is what we're talking about. That KING 5 should be the arbiter of what is inflammatory has two sides: it is subjective and good for them!

I don't like the subjective part; on the other hand, somebody has to decide what's offensive and inaccurate as opposed to informative.

And informative can be entertaining as well. Since we seem to need entertainment in everything these days. Learning for the sake of learning seems to be out of style for Americans. We salute you, Paril Hilton.

[joanie]

Sorry, Paris Hilton.

[EvergreenRailfan]

It is interesting to see what is going to happen. Maybe the Fairness Doctrine will come back, maybe it will not. Right now, it is just the right wingers making a big deal, fearing that they may lose their stranglehold on the media. It is interesting that O'Reilly attacked the Nielsen Ratings system for showing a Liberal Bias, because both Olbermann and Maddow gained on him.

I was listening to a podcast of KPOJ's morning program(not sure if you can call it Thom Hartmann's local show anymore, he is on for only 1 of the 3 hours, first 2 he is getting ready for the National show), and one caller called in who was a trucker, talking about what he is hearing on the CB Radio, and it seems a lot are worried about a President Obama. Then again, it was some Democrats that were lobbying to stop Mexican Trucks and Truckers from getting on our highways. I remember Ed Schultz was taking up that issue, and a lot of his callers on that issue, were American Truckers fearing a loss of jobs. Conservative Hosts, would probably say, Free Trade creates American Jobs. Freightliner is moving jobs out of Portland to Mexico, but I would not have a problem with them building trucks in Mexico, for the Mexican Market, but not to re-import to the U.S. I am one that thinks we need an Industrial Base, especially now more than ever. It used to be a potent psychological weapon, even in a downturn. Remember Japanese Admiral Yammamoto? The reason he pushed for the attack on Pearl Harbor, was not just because it was a tempting target, but because he knew it was their only chance, and that was a longshot at best. As a Naval Attache, he toured America, and saw our Industrial Might, new what could happen if it were mobilized for an all out war effort. We had shipyard that could be built overnight, and later, were building merchant ships faster than an enemy could sink them, car factories that were converted to build tanks and aircraft. We have outsourced too much, and that issue is not being discussed too much in the media from a National Security point of view. It is like with Locomotives, I love EMD's latest products, but got a problem with them. About a decade ago, GM closed the LaGrange, Illinois plant and moved all production to London, Ontario, and when that plant had overflow, a plant in Mexico helped out. At least GE still builds their locomotives in Erie, PA. GM, when they still owned EMD, did not even ask their customers if they wanted to build the locomotives from kits. Norfolk Southern was standing by, they owned a shop in Altoona, PA that could do it. It's bread and butter is doing rebuilds and other heavy maintenance, and it keeps them busy, but they also have built locomotives of all types from the major builders, whether steam, diesel, or electric.

[Coiler]

The SD-45 was the best engine. Electro-Motive is probably doing what Toyota did by accessing the Canadian health care system for it's workers.

[EvergreenRailfan]

It sure was not to be away from the Unions, I hear Canadian Unions can be more militant at times than ours. Then again, health care is not one of a company's concerns, as far as a cost, in Canada. By the way, remember when one network did a Greatest American competition and Reagan won? Up in Canada, they had a Greatest Canadian competition, and Trudeau was 3rd, Terry Fox(of the Marathon of Hope) was 2nd, but coming in first, was Tommy Douglas, Saskatchewan Premier, whose greatest contribution, a program where the province funded healthcare, called Medicare. The Conservative PM at the time had a problem, then decided after a commissiom report, to go Canada-wide with the Saskatchewan program. And they say Third Parties don't accomplish much. Canada's healthcare was started by a third party, a forerunner to the New Democratic Party. The party took a hit on the Federal and provincial levels a decade ago, but has made a comeback. Interesting, it was Tommy Douglas's opposition to sending troops into Quebec in 1970 that inspired the current NDP leader to become a lifelong member of the party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas#Medicare

Now commuter and passenger locomotives, being bought with Federal Money, have to be built here. EMD is out of that market, but that does not mean EMD is not involved and surrendered it to GE. A company in Idaho builds locomotives for commuter lines in the U.S. and Canada, using EMD engines. 645s for the 3600hp model, 710s for the 4000hp model.