Bill Clinton told Mario Solis Marich on LA's Talk KTLK/that he'd like to see "something like" the Fairness Doctrine return, "or we ought to have more balance on the other side."
Sens. Debbie Stabenow and Tom Harkin are on record as supporting the return of the Fairness Doctrine, with Stabenow saying she thinks hearings on the topic of "accountability" are likely. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also said she'd like to see the doctrine back in place.
Politico's Michael Calderone writes: Indeed, no member of Congress has scheduled hearings, there is no Fairness Doctrine legislation being introduced, and the long-dormant broadcast law is likely to stay that way."
This despite Sean "Hair Product" Hannity's call to Debbie Stabenoe, “You want this microphone? Come and get it!”
So do I. Moderation in all things.
Now where have I heard that before?
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 01:21 PM
He really does have nice hair, doesn't he? Reminds me of Sheriff Dave. It looks even better now that it is all silver.
Posted by: chucks | February 13, 2009 at 01:49 PM
For those of you who want progressive talk radio, it is out there. Tune in and it will thrive.
So I have a question. What should a radio station do if they cannot get affordable avertising that will pay for whatever type of programing the fairness doctrine demands?
Posted by: Ryder | February 13, 2009 at 02:00 PM
Appeal to congress for a bail out.
Posted by: Simpleanswer | February 13, 2009 at 02:11 PM
Let me ask you a question: What do people do who live in the hinterlands and have no access to anybody but Rush and right-wing corporate radio?
The urban areas are purple because they both sides. The rural areas are red because they don't hear both sides. And, Ryder, that's a fact whether you believe it or not. I proved it myself on my last trip to Chelan, Omak, and Benton City. It was Rush, Rush and more Rush and a little local farm radio. Thrilling.
Re: advertising? Well, some of us pay for it - as I do Nova M and Peter B. Or we listen to talkers who don't ask for so much money and their stations can make it on the advertising they do get. Or we listen to public radio.
Next?
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 02:19 PM
I don't think they're serious about this. It's just a diversion tactic designed to put the conservatives on the defense and blunt their offensive which has been suprisingly effective since Obama took office.
Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | February 13, 2009 at 02:32 PM
so joanie are you saying people in e washington are conservative because they have no liberal radio??? if the majority of liberals lived east of the mountains dont you think there would be stations there to serve them?
Posted by: Dave (not dave ross) | February 13, 2009 at 02:36 PM
The fairness doctrine is not going to happen. If something comes down the pike that might balance radio, it would be nothing like the old FD which would be damn nigh impossible to implement today and enforce. I know, I worked under the regulation, and it didn't work then.
Posted by: bert | February 13, 2009 at 02:39 PM
The urban areas are purple because people rely on government for everything. If you have a burglar or other kind of invader, you call 911 and hide in the closet. If the rural guy has a problem, he grabs his shotgun and handles it. When 911 is called, it is to have the sheriff come out and remove the body if need be.
When it snows, we urbanites wait for the city snow removal crews to clear the roads. Out in the sticks, they jump on their tractor and clear it. Plus they clear the driveway for their elderly neighbors and make sure they have everything they need.
In the big city, we got a fire, we call the fire dept. Out in the hinterlands, the neighbors drop everything and run down to their volunteer fire station, jump on the truck and go take care of it.
We still need gumment for the big stuff, but the little stuff we just handle.
We don't want the same people handling the illegal alien registration thingy running our health care.
Posted by: chucks | February 13, 2009 at 02:41 PM
we will have the nternets in the car and everywhere else in the next few years, then the FCC, and right-wing radio will be fucked...here's a real free market, mutherfuckers!
Posted by: Minsky | February 13, 2009 at 02:42 PM
I well understand that the rural areas are almost totally conservative talk. So what? If there is no market for progressive thought why should a radio station be forced to promote it?
Wouldn't it be fun to go back to Boston of 1776. Forced balance so that anyone reading revolution papers would be forced to also purchase royalist papers. I know, I know. Its the "public" airwaves we arre talkng about. Lord, please don't lower yourself to that argument. We're talking about FREEDOM here. And please don't anyone drop the stupid logic on me that if the viewpoints were reversed you would still feel the same.
Posted by: Ryder | February 13, 2009 at 02:42 PM
No, Dave (not Ross), radio has become propaganda. If all one hears is one side, are you saying it isn't influential?
What I'm saying is cities have a mix of radio and rural areas don't. They have what corporations give them. Primarily Robo stations and Rush.
Now, since that's all they can get, how do you know that's all they want?
There's a difference between being informed and being propagandized. And, I would submit, it is a myth to think only conservatives or only liberals live anywhere. If people never hear the other side, they are uninformed and likely to parrot what they hear.
Your set-up is a simple one but the issue of propaganda vs balance is not simple.
I would suspect that anywhere all people are exposed to one ideology, the majority of them would adhere to it. There will always be some who do not follow the herd. But not many.
Isn't that how propaganda works?
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 03:05 PM
I am saying exactly, Dave, that rural areas would probably be more purple if they had access to more diverse radio and heard alternate points of view.
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 03:09 PM
Chucks, that's a nice hypothesis, but you can't take it to the political bank. Until you give the both sides, you have no basis on which to conclude that.
I'm one of those who wishes we could become two states. I think it would be eye-opening to see them fund their bridges and roads without our tax dollars.
Of course, they could always build them themselves. In their spare time.
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 03:13 PM
Uh-oh! I'm overposting!
But, one more:
If there is no market for progressive thought why should a radio station be forced to promote it?
You don't know that. Therein lies the problem.
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 03:16 PM
Huge point missing here. There are more righty stations on the dial across the fruited plain because they can attract audiences in numbers measurable enough to pursuade advertisers to buy time. Lefty stations - not so much. Plain and simple.
The reasons for that - discuss among yourselves,
Seems to me that the idea of devising some way to force a privately owned commercial business to broadcast something it judges to be destructive to its audience is lazy at best and perhaps unconstiutional to boot.
Posted by: beenthere | February 13, 2009 at 03:25 PM
I'm home sick today. And I am sick with an awful cold.
So, I'll not inflict myself upon you further. (movie please?) It's back to bed for me.
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 03:28 PM
I have to take that one:
There are few stations across the fruited plain. And they are often owned by large, absent corporations.
You make a sweeping statement that might have been true at one time before radio became less local and more corporate. But, I would challenge your opening statement and ask you to prove it.
Until then, your opinion is as good as mine.
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 03:33 PM
From the belly of the beast - I assure you that mega Corporate radio would put bat-poop flinging on a station in each American radio market if it got ratings. In market after market lefty radio has gotten no traction and failed.
Things may change now, but in the pre-PPM ARB world righty radio produced ratings and lefty radio didn't.
Posted by: beenthere | February 13, 2009 at 03:42 PM
joanie im not being a hater, however i agree with 'beenthere' who accurately states how i feel.
Posted by: Dave (not dave ross) | February 13, 2009 at 04:14 PM
It's true that solid conservative talk amounts to propoganda because if a conservative person has a natural tendency to drift towards the center they will every be pulled further to the right by listening to people WHO GET PAYED to vilify the left in the name of good theater.
I don't buy the excude that talk radio is counter balanced by the Internet because hicks don't use the internet. Hicks know three things; talk radio, country music and illiteracy. All three are condusive to right wing thought.
Posted by: AuthenticAndrew | February 13, 2009 at 04:59 PM
Hartmann covered how a progressive station format is sucessful. 1. is having a dedicated sales staff,one that knows which events to go to when promoting a product. 2. is having a strong signal, progressive stations with 1,000 watts will have a difficult time in a major market. A lot of the progressive stations fall into the low power category.
Posted by: Coiler | February 13, 2009 at 05:11 PM
chucks, Eastern Washington is subsidized by the taxes paid in Western Washington. Not enough people over there to pay for construction and maintenance of roads. Also, a LOT of family services, paid for with tax money because of the level of poverty, chilrens' services, etc. The days of the independent pioneer-ish farmer are gone...many need government subsidies to get by.
Posted by: sparky | February 13, 2009 at 05:53 PM
joanie, I listen to podcasts from the Morning Program on KPOJ(I like Karl's Mystery Button segment, and sometimes listen to all three hours, as well). Sometimes they get callers from Wenatchee, Kelso, Astoria, Scappoose, and other areas not exactly in Downtown Portland. Now for the guy in the Wenatchee area, I don't know if it is atmospheric bounce(620khz at 25,000 Watts ERP I doubt can get too much of a bounce over the Cascades) or via the stream to get Air America. I doubt KPTK gets that far, and again, they don't carry KPOJ mornings.
As for unlikely areas where Air America has affiliates, they list KXLJ in Alaska, Juneau to be exact. I doubt they will get many listeners at all in that area, and Canada would not provide too many either, as that part of the Yukon and BC are sparsely populated.
http://airamerica.com/content/kxlj
In the case of Air America's Anchorage affiliate, ownership does have it's priveledges, and responsibilities. For awhile, KUDO had a podcast stream, and it was playing commercials to on the shows. Mostly local businesses, a few commercials for their owner. The owner of KUDO 1080? The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and they were running commercials for opponents of people on a local utility board that they claimed were sympathetic to the IBEW. They have to take political ads during an election, and they cannot jack the rate up too high, it has to be the lowest rate. KKGN was saying that when listeners were getting on them for running Prop 8 ads. The Clear Channel Program Director(and he seems to be a Progressive) at KKGN was saying to listeners, that they had to take those ads, and they were not making money off of them. Clear Channel gets a bad rap for censorship, but they have given AAR a chance, and in many markets, they still have it, but the ones they cut include potential markets that could go purple. The excuse for flipping KLSD in San Diego I think was overtly political. They claimed by putting it on an HD channel, they were improving the quality, when there are some drawbacks. HD Radios in some areas do cut out, and fall back to the main channel, and to top it all off, you need an HD Radio to pick up an HD Radio Channel. They are not too widely available, yet. In a way by flipping it to an HD Channel, and putting Sports Talk on the regular signal it occupied, they were being overtly political. Right wingers tag left-wingers as elitists, and not too many little guys can afford an HD Radio yet, let alone if they can find one.
Posted by: EvergreenRailfan | February 13, 2009 at 06:25 PM
I got KPOJ and KXL in Chelan last month in the morning. KPTK actually gets in to parts of E Wa
Posted by: Coiler | February 13, 2009 at 06:49 PM
At least my woman's "man" supports it. I suppose I will now. Hey Chuck & KS - what are you all doing this weekend? Keep in touch ;)
Posted by: Duffman | February 13, 2009 at 07:27 PM
Duffman, this isnt a dating site. Please keep this open for important war news against the GOP
Posted by: Coiler | February 13, 2009 at 07:41 PM
Your "woman"? Are you wearing the wife-beater shirt tonight?
Posted by: sparky | February 13, 2009 at 07:42 PM
I respect your opinion, Dave-not ross. But I still think you miss the bigger picture. It isn't always what the market demands. Often, it's what we can get.
I'm curious why you think we've become so polarized? Republican and conservatives used to think like Eisenhower who called the Texan oil men stupid.
What accounts for conservatives moving so far to the right? Especially in those rural areas.
Local radio doesn't cost an arm and a leg to run. But there's little of it left.
Coiler, reception is always a problem. I got KIRO in Chelan for about ten minutes at night before the signal started getting static and coming in and out. Did you get a strong signal consistently?
Railfan, thanks for an interesting contribution. Those callers from Kelso, Wenatchee ... do you know if they are listening on line or over the airwaves?
Either way, it shows there are people who listen to liberal talk.
I agree that rural areas have always been more conservative. But, once the talk became so hateful and the message so memed, the lack of balance hijacked the politics to our coutry's deficit.
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Railfan, if you're still out there, what's your overall opinion? Sounds like there are situations that support both sides. What do you think?
Which came first: lack of market or lack of access?
I'm thinking if lack of market for liberal radio, then the only change is in the message and the hyper extreme way the conservative message is being sent.
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 08:30 PM
Does Former Pres. Clinton favor the Fairness Doctrine ? Depends on what the definition of is is...
I don't think that the Fairness Doctrine would be a good thing. If this applied to TV, I would be more inclined to be in favor of it. Then there would have to be more liberals on Fox and more conservatives on CNN, MSNBC, and the alphabet channels.
I understand that it only applies to radio though. The politicians want to limit Conservative voices on the radio, but not totally wipe them out, but it will stymie free speech to a degree.
The other reason I am against it is that this all smells too much like a concerted power grab by the Democrats. If the Republicans were in the position to do this, like they within the last 8 years, I would be against it also. For instance, if the Republicans required liberally dominated TV stations to have the same number of conservative as liberal news commentators, while allowing talk radio to stay like it is, I would be against it because it is anti- 1st amendment.
Many politicians,probably don't realize the implications like the people influenced do- after almost all of them who voted for the stimulus package did not know what all was in the bill and what all they voted for, so how can you expect them to know about something like a Fairness Doctrine, which is really oxymoronic.
Posted by: KS | February 13, 2009 at 08:40 PM
Sorry, Railfan, but you said so much and I'm still digesting it. It sounds like there are markets that could sustain liberal talk but are not being given the opportunity. And you have posted examples of politics determining what people hear.
So, I guess it is a mixed bag. That gives me enough evidence to say that it very well could be lack of access more than lack of market. Until liberal talk is tried and given a chance to succeed, no one knows if it could.
I've heard that it is hard to get a license from the FCC for a small operation. Is that true? The one hope I have is that Obama will open the airwaves to more local ownership and that will, in turn, provide more diversity in programming.
And, railfan, I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Hope I understood you correctly.
And Dave - not ross: why would you think I'd call you a hater? You haven't said anything hateful. Is that a backdoor slam?
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 08:43 PM
A "concerted power grab" - you idiot - would be eliminating all right-wing stations in favor of liberal talk.
Maybe we should try it.
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 08:45 PM
Ryder: We're talking about FREEDOM here.
Keeping freedom depends on an informed citizenry. That's why the Fourth Estate was protected in the Constitution. Or had you forgotten?
Posted by: joanie | February 13, 2009 at 08:56 PM
I like to shop at Trader Joes. There is no Trader Joes in my immediate area, so I don't get to shop there very often. I have to drive some distance to get to one. According to the logic of some of you on here, people in my area dont shop at Trader Joes because they are not interested in it, not because there is no store in the area. Right.
Posted by: sparky | February 13, 2009 at 09:22 PM
Sparky,
...ok, if you want to start off with a flawed FD analogy why stop in midstream?
your solution then would be to have the gov't mandate a trader joes in your area.
jeeez, that sounds a lot like those eastern european systems popular between 1946-1991. how'd that work out?
Posted by: Puget Sound | February 13, 2009 at 09:41 PM
Dont go logical on Sparky now Puts. Yesterday she said Shumers "yes" actually meant "no".
Posted by: Nevets | February 13, 2009 at 09:46 PM
No, government involvemnt is not part of the analogy. I am referring to the argument of why you all think there are no more liberal radio stations--you guys say its because there is no market for it. I say its because a lot of people in this country dont know what they are missing because one is not available to them.
Posted by: sparky | February 13, 2009 at 09:55 PM
LOL
well, hell. sparky tried.
it is depressing what we just passed on to our kids today without even a full reading of what's in the bill.
1100 pages. no one voting for it has read it.
the promised 48 hours to review reneged on and the mantra 'gotta do it now'
so where is this transparency we were promised?
Obama is rapidly becoming O'Scama although to be fair this is being horribly handled by Pelosi/Reid.
Posted by: Puget Sound | February 13, 2009 at 09:58 PM
sparky
but it is part of your solution to the lack of trader joes in your area if we follow your analogy to its logical conclusion.
Posted by: Puget Sound | February 13, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Sparky, how is Trader Joes going to know there is a market for them in your area if you dont tell them. Have you tried a mail in campaign of neighbors and friends or sent a city delegation to offer tax breaks for them to build a store in your area. I'm sure if Trader Joes knew of a demand for thier store in your area they wouild open one up in a minute.
Posted by: Nevets | February 13, 2009 at 10:07 PM
And Joanies statement...
"That gives me enough evidence to say that it very well could be lack of access more than lack of market."
She was just given two accounts of Liberal talk being transmitted into Eastern Washington. If anything that would be evidence of access to Liberal Talk in the area. And since it is still "Red", then it definetly has to be lack of market for Liberal talk to take hold.
Posted by: Nevets | February 13, 2009 at 10:11 PM
C'mon Puts. Lets keep the blame where it belongs. Reid and Pelosi. President Obama has never even run a lemonade stand let alone a country. He is our President and no matter how much he makes a fool of himself or this country he deserves out respect. Otherwise we would be no better than the Libs.
Posted by: Nevets | February 13, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Yes, Steven, that is my point.
Posted by: sparky | February 13, 2009 at 10:20 PM
" Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress.
“No, I don’t think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill],” Lautenberg told CNSNews.com."
lots of dems cried about not having a chance to read the usapatriot act. ( of course, when they got a chance to renew it most of them voted for it)
a bill of this magnitude should be read in full prior to the vote. what's the freakin hurry? lets get it right.
Posted by: Puget Sound | February 13, 2009 at 10:25 PM
he is my president. i want him to do well. it's just that to date, he has done a poor job picking cabinet members (question: do any prominent dems pay their taxes?) and being able to reign in the dem congress. and the bringing in the census to be handled by the political types versus the professional census types is not a good deal.
poor staffing such as the fiasco out at the caterpiller plant saying one thing about how the stimulus bill would allow caterpiller to rehire laid off workers and quoting the ceo of caterpiller. only to be contradicted by the ceo of caterpiller who said that no, in fact addional lay offs would occur anyway.
just not a great start.
Posted by: Puget Sound | February 13, 2009 at 10:31 PM
Don't know why I keep trying... I'm an idiot I guess:
The Baseline Scenario
Simon Johnson was on Moyers. He's an MIT Sloan School of Business Prof. This is his site on the economy. His bio is here.
He believes we're handling this like a third-world country model.
I'm troubled by Obama's choice of Tim Geitner for Treasury. Scary.
See Moyers interview here.
Posted by: joanie for chucks | February 13, 2009 at 10:33 PM
KKGN and KTLK, 2 Liberal Talk Radio Stations in California, have survived, despite being Clear Channel stations. Those are in San Francisco and Los Angeles, respectively, and got some good slogans. KKGN is Green 960, and KTLK goes by "Progressive, the New Mainstream". Plus, marketing is another thing that can be improved. KPTQ in Spokane could be a good example, I wonder how many over there even know it is on the air? Many of us on this blog, no matter if you are a conservative or liberal, probably assume KPTK is the only Progressive Station on the air in Washington. There is more than one within Washington State, and KPOJ does not have a barrier keeping it's transmission from crossing the Columbia. Some format changes, although they are business decisions, just seem to be suspicous.
In Ohio, following Democratic victories in several Congressional Districts and the Senate, three Air America Affiliates, including ones owned by Clear Channel were flipped. With some Democrats talking about media consolidation, some at Clear Channel might have got scared. KLSD was bumped to the HD Channel for a sports station, the third in that market.
Now KPHX went from Nova M/Air America to Adult Standards format, but Nova M took over another station that was without a format, thanks ironically, to right wingers and their anti-illegal immigration stance. KNUV in Phoenix was a spanish-language station. It is now Progressive Talk.
Plus, some go by Arbitron numbers to say the format is not working. Aren't Arbitron numbers based on voluntary reporting?
Posted by: EvergreenRailfan | February 13, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Sparky, and you are doing??? If you want Traders Joe in your area. Start pounding the pavement. Get the word out. Same with Liberal Talk. If you want it, you need to start it. Going to the Government is not the answer. Is it? They are not going to build you a Traders Joe are they, so why should you expect them to start you a Liberal Talk radio station.
Posted by: Nevets | February 13, 2009 at 10:42 PM
I would like to see a more intense look by the FCC into the license requirements. Enforce the Public interest part, but not exactly the Fairness Doctrine. This is something that should have been enforced. I wonder if the FCC even looks into license renewals anymore, or if they just rubber-stamp them. I am sure there are some that probably complain about Mike Savage and Mike Malloy. Both are pretty rabid.
I heard there were cases where Ed Schultz and Rush Limbaugh were on the same station.
I also download podcasts of CBC programming, as well as CanWest Global out of Canada. CBC Newfoundland's Radio Noon does some call-in, and they had a former Conservative candidate in the House of Commons who lost(2008 was a bad year for Conservatives in Newfoundland and Labrador, got trounced in all districts, due partly to an "Anything But Conservative" blitz by ironically, Conservative Provincial Premier Danny Williams. He felt the newly "have" province of Newfoundland got jilted in a redo of the Equalization program that helps out "have not" provinces. Oil and other resources had made Newfoundland a have province recently), and the conversation was civil until one caller got on and started insulting the guy, and the host got involved and said everybody calm down, the guest said thanks. The guest was not exactly innocent himself, called the caller a wingnut. There did not seem to be somebody from the CRTC in the room saying equal time.
Cross Country Checkup is a good program, and once it got heated, during last year's premature Canadian Election, the host offered time to all the major party leaders, the Green, Liberal, and New Democratic Party leaders all took up the offer, the Conservative PM did not, and neither did the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, but I doubt there are that many Francophones in the rest of Canada to reach, and the Bloc had no candidates outside Quebec. There was a caller from the Oshawa area of Ontario, center of the Canadian Auto sector, who got a heated debate with the Liberal Leader, and the guy sounded like he was on one of our talk shows, really giving the guy a hard time over a controversial enviromental measure in the Federal Liberal platform, the Carbon Tax. Either way, it was a vigorous debate.
I doubt you can compare the CBC to NPR and PBS too much, because at least CBC-TV runs commercials.(Just turn to Comcast Channel 99 in parts of Seattle at least, and you get the CBC station in Vancouver, and you will see).
Here with Presidential Debates, the parties and the media control them, in Canada, mainly the media groups control Leaders Debates. Usually it is a simple rule, all parties with seats at dissolution of parliament get represented. That can range from 2 people debating in a BC Provincial Election to 5 last year in the Federal Debate. Unfortunately if we had that rule in Presidential Debates by saying all parties with seats in Congress can be invited, it would still leave out third parties.
Posted by: EvergreenRailfan | February 13, 2009 at 10:58 PM