In a post last Friday about the “Fairness” Doctrine, a commenter quipped:
Imagine the outcry when the wacko Phelps family of Kansas gets to have anti-gay programs on all of the stations that have pro-gay rights material.
Heh. Funny – but as luck would have it, that’s not how the “Fairness” doctrine works.
Here’s how I remember it working in the first eight years of my radio “career”, from 1979 to 1987, when both the Doctrine and my job at KSTP were repealed.
The “Fairness” Doctrine didn’t assign ideological quotas to station’s programming; there was no bureaucrat in the Minneapolis office poring over stations’ schedules, coloring in liberal shows in crimson and conservative shows in blue, comparing swatches, and issuing orders to reprogram dayparts.
What the “Fairness” doctrine did was give the public – or parts of the public that were up in arms about a station’s presentation of one or several issues – legal and procedural grounds to challenge a station’s license renewal.
When stations renew their licenses (and I forget what the time period is for that; it happens every several years; I want to say “seven”, but don’t bet your mortgage on that), the FCC takes complaints from the public about the station’s “public service”. During the period of the “Fairness” Doctrine, that meant that people could write the FCC and complain that the station’s politics didn’t grant equal time to one view or another. Investigating these complaints and adjudicating them was part of the license renewal process was part of getting the license renewed; the FCC could assign corrective actions or (in theory; don’t know if it ever happend) deny renewal.
For most radio stations, the “programming” was mostly music – a matter of taste, certainly, but not a matter of public policy interest; writing to the FCC to demand a country station switch to alt-rock (record stores in Minnepolis in the mid ’80s frequently had “petitions” sitting around from groups that wanted the FCC to “serve the public” by forcing, say, K102 or KOOL108 or some other FM frequency to play alternative rock) would pretty much fall on deaf ears. But stations did (and to an extent, still do) have to show some effort to serve the public interest; these efforts had/have to be documented to the FCC at license renewal time. For a music station – like the first four I worked at – it was a matter of filing logs showing that the station had played
- public service announcements – non-paying commercial spots for non-profits and charities.
- “public affairs programs” – these still pop up; some stations will do a half-hour interview with some community figure or organization, and play it back on Sunday mornings when nobody’s listening and it won’t kill the ratings.
- news – back then, anyway. This hasn’t counted in over 20 years – which is why radio station news departments are scarcer than polka stations these days.
For talk stations, though, the potential was there to discuss controversial topics – news, current events, social issues and so on. These issues go way beyond having political overtones; most are inextricably political.
Under the “Fairness” Doctrine, the public could complain about the “balance” of the station’s presentation; at renewal time, if people complained the station was “too liberal”, the management had two options: have some sort of counterbalancing conservative on the air so they could tell the FCC they were taking measures to balance things out (which was how I got my first show, in 1986; KSTP had plenty of liberals on the air, and Scott Meier put me on weekend graveyards to cover the station’s butt for very, very cheap), or avoid controversy in the first place.
It all came down to showing to the FCC’s satisfaction that the broadcaster was adequately “serving the public interest”, so they’d renew the station’s license to use their frequency.
Since the license was mandatory for keeping the station on the air, most stations’ managers opted not to rock the boat – opted to play toward the middle and avoid complaints that could lead to costy, license-risking challenges.
So if the “Fairness” doctrine is reinstated, what’ll happen?
There won’t be any more time given to Fred Phelps; there won’t be a huge phalanx of complaints demanding equal time for his views. I have THAT much faith in my fellow citizens.
There also won’t be any equal time for conservatives on network newscasts, because it’s news and journalism, and everyone knows news and journalism are balanced and objective. Also they subscribe to “journalistic codes of ethics”, and while you and I both know that a “journalistic code of ethics” is nothing but a framework to rationalize dodgy behavior on the part of journalists, to the FCC it’s a get-out-of-“fairness”-free card. It’s not bias – it’s journalism!
But talk radio? The leaders of the medium – Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Hewitt, the Northern Alliance – proudly identify themselves as conservatives. It’s part of their marketing; it’s how they reach their audience.
So when stations come up for renewal, their schedules will show a number of hours of talk that, for marketing purposes, labelse itself “conservative” talk. And in a world where Atrios and Kos draw half a million visits a day, the left powers that be COULD, in a “Fairness Doctrine” run broadcast world, send hordes of droogs after that station up for renewal, demanding more liberal programming “in the public interest”; an Obama-appointed FCC would likely give the complaints plenty of credence. In order to retain their license, the station would have to add some liberal programming, like the Stephanie Miller or Ed Schultz – if they’re lucky (they’re the two liberals who show any life in the ratings at all) – or some stiff like “Lionel” or Michael Jackson (who do not). While there is nearly no audience for this programming, the FCC will be acting on the complaints, not ad receipts or ratings. The station would do as well to leave the transmitter off.
Of course, conservatives could in theory challenge the licenses of the few liberal talk stations – Minneapolis’ KTNF, the local FrankenNet “Air America” affiliate is a good example – but that’d really be a side issue and a diversion. The entire liberal commercial talk radio audience could fit into Rush Limbaugh’s garage with room enough left over for his cars. Limbaugh, Hannity, Bennett, Ingraham, Boortz, Miller, North, Liddy, Medved, Prager, Hewitt and even Jason Lewis are an army of 900 pound gorillas driving armored bulldozers, in ratings and financial terms. Comparing the ratings firepower of conservative and liberal talk radio is like scrimmage between the US Seventh Fleet and the Saint Paul Sailing Club.
So given the pain that the Doctrine will cause stations that run conservative talk, saying “conservatives can get equal time on liberal stations” would be like getting stripped of a Super Bowl ring, but knowing someone else gets a free toaster as a consolation prize, On a station running five 900 pound gorillas in armored bulldozers, it’d be like being forced to trade three of them for schnauzers on trikes.
It’s a win-win for liberals – – they get to water down the conservative movement’s best vehicle for free speech – and a lose-lose for conservatives. And anyone who tries to convince you there’s any other rationale to it is either uninformed, disinformed, or trying to make you one or the other.
Imagine the outcry when the wacko Phelps family of Kansas gets to have anti-gay programs on all of the stations that have pro-gay rights material.
Heh. Funny – but as luck would have it, that’s not how the “Fairness” doctrine works.”
No – it isn’t, and that’s a canard of your own construction. I don’t believe that advocating for the illegal violation of civil rights is a fairness question – but even if it were, NO ONE has to put Fred Phelps on- NO ONE – and while you say you have faith that no one would – saying it’s the outcome of the doctrine is false – the outcome is equal time to a political position. The spokesperson would reasonably be chosen by someone with some sense of dececny and, for that matter, likelihood to say things in a way that doesn’t violate FCC rules about content – Fred Phelps fails – so creating this boogey-man scenario – even while saying it ‘probably’ wouldn’t happen – is obfuscation- disinformation designed to ellevate hyperbole rather than discussion.
As for network news and fairness, I understand you feel that if the news isn’t TOTALLY slanted to your perogative, then it’s unfair, but the issue of course is instead, and you conveniently ignorned it, that news organizations are generally aligned on the idea of NOT interjecting opinion about the quality or nature of the motives of the newsmakers, whereas you ‘conservative thinkers’ make no distinction between ‘news’ and pure invective opinion.
The reason for ‘fairness’ is that advocating for one political position on public airwaves is using a public trust for the benefit of ONE political party over another. I’m plenty informed, and while I agree it’s about deluting the value and impact of conservative talk radio – I disagree that it’s about curtailing your speech, you can speak ALL YOU LIKE – you just have to allow for equal air time. You can buy all the time on all the radio stations, up to 50% apparently, and have your voice aired incessantly during peak hours – you just have to allow for equal discussion on PUBLIC airwaves.
Anyone who doesn’t get that conservatives are quaking in their boots because this would require radio stations dominated by conservative op-ed/program director/programming boards to actually try to be FAIR in how news is covered and analyzed, and thus cut down the pillar of UNFAIRNESS they (conservatives) have dominated – is either uninformed, disinformed, or trying to make you one or the other. They don’t want Salem Broadcasting, or Hubbard, or Clear Channel, to have to air real discourse about topics – where each side is represented equally in open and frank reviews of policy, because to do so would destroy the falacy they’ve worked so hard to create, namely, that liberalism is the work of fools, cheats, liars and contemptible scum, and holds no merits whatsoever on any subject. That it’s motivations are to buy votes through yet more and more welfare programs so that rich fat-cats can live off the public dole. Any rational analysis of such a strawman would of course destroy it for the charade of a theory that it is, and they can’t have that, because if THAT happens, then the fact that conservatism is counter to the economic interests of the middle class might come to the fore, and their dominance of ‘blue-dog’ Democrats would end – and with it, their power – and they damned well know it. That’s why people like Mitch won’t engage in legitimate discussion, and instead always engage in attacking the commenter, rather than the policy.
sorry, that first sentence was meant to read ‘that’s a canard of your theorhetical commentors’ construction – you created a nonsense scenario which appears to have been for little else than just to inflame non-existent concerns so that you could say ‘I have enough faith’ right before questioning that same ‘faith’ in terms of journalistic ethics.
or trying to make you one or the other.
a.k.a. LYING. Which is the VAST majority of people who are in favor of the resurgence of any form of the “fairness” doctrine.
I’m sure it won’t be Ma and Pa Kettle who have a spread out in Mountain Lake complaining that “WWTC/KTLK spend too much time on conservative talk and not enough on hog futures reports”
True enough Bill.
But pretending this is about defending the freedom of speech is no less of a lie.
This is knock-down, knuckle busting politics, nothing else. Putting on the mantle of either ‘Fairness’ or ‘Free Speech’ in both cases, is nonsense of the first order.
The only difference is, I wouldn’t pretend it’s about fairness. It IS about the use of public airwaves, but the Dems don’t give a rip about fairness, just like the Republicans/conservatives don’t give a rip about free speech in this instance. They’re getting to say all they want, and if you can’t say all you want in 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, you’re hardly being prevented from saying what you want… these programs are supposedly entertainment – not political advocation anway – so which are they, politics, and therefore limited by election law, or entertainment? If entertainment, no one is getting limited from saying what they want, because, it’s a schtick, a show.
“sorry, that first sentence was meant to read…”
Pfft.
Don’t trouble your little featherhead peeve. No one gets much beyond the first word before moving on.
Is Precious Penigma-Peevish putting words in selective mouths again? Is he making baseless claims again?
More to the point, has he manned-up and answered the questions and challenges put to him following his last, second to the last, third to the last, as well as the previous twelve statements?
Little Miss Precious-Peeve:
“As for network news and fairness, I understand you feel that if the news isn’t TOTALLY slanted to your perogative, then it’s unfair, but the issue of course is instead, and you conveniently ignorned it, that news organizations are generally aligned on the idea of NOT interjecting opinion about the quality or nature of the motives of the newsmakers, whereas you ‘conservative thinkers’ make no distinction between ‘news’ and pure invective opinion. ”
Excuse me, ma’am… it appears that you don’t understand a blind word about news, journalism, and broadcasting.
Peev,
While my current policy as re your comments is to ignore (or flippantly dismiss) anything you write that has not the faintest shred of factual basis, and for all of your palaver about “Discussion” you tend to leave your little rhetorical turds and scamper away without answering for your many mistakes.
And this series of posts would normally be covered.
However, the sheer egregiousness of your ignorance about the broadcasting industry and the application of the Doctrine, then and now, is so chasmic that it’s worth breaking my rule just to pelt you with well-earned ridicule.
Your comment is that bad.
…NO ONE has to put Fred Phelps on- NO ONE – and while you say you have faith that no one would – saying it’s the outcome of the doctrine is false – the outcome is equal time to a political position.
Peev, if anything your reading comprehension has gotten worse.
As I noted in my post, nothing about the Doctrine applies to Phelps.
You said basically exactly what I said – with a couple hundred words and some gratuitous insults.
The spokesperson would reasonably be chosen by someone with some sense of dececny and, for that matter, likelihood to say things in a way that doesn’t violate FCC rules about content
WRONG!
No “spokesman” will be “chosen” at all.
Because you are mixing up two different sets of laws, Peev; the “Fairness Doctrine” and the laws governing equal time for candidates during campaigns.
When stations interview political candidates, they have to offer equal time to other points of view. Hence the NARN offers equal time to opponents of all candidates we interview. They never accept, but that’s not our problem
As for network news and fairness, I understand you feel that if the news isn’t TOTALLY slanted to your perogative
The rest of this point is too dumb to dignify with a response. I am quite clearly more in favor of a lively, diverse discussion than you are (to say nothing of being capable of engaging in one).
The reason for ‘fairness’ is that advocating for one political position on public airwaves is using a public trust for the benefit of ONE political party over another. I’m plenty informed, and while I agree it’s about deluting the value and impact of conservative talk radio – I disagree that it’s about curtailing your speech, you can speak ALL YOU LIKE – you just have to allow for equal air time.
You are not “plenty informed”; indeed, your every paragraph shows that you are monolithically ignorant about this subject. I’m sorry, it’s the truth. It’s hard to even sustain a conversation with someone who’s not only so deficient on the basics of this issue, but couches it in so much pointless hostility.
It IS about curtailing free speech and distorting the market, Peev. There is NO shortage of outlets for opinion. None. We have unlimited cable and satellite bandwidth, blogs, podcasts, TV networks, plenty of broadcast bandwidth and much more coming soon. There is none, zero, shortage of outlets for opinion and points of view. They are ALL out there. Every one, in immense profusion.
There is NO need for the “Fairness Doctrine”; it is a completely obsolete concept. It’s a holdover from the days when every city had 1-4 newspapers and a couple of radio freqs and that was it. It’s like giving allocations on buggy whip distribution.
You can buy all the time on all the radio stations, up to 50% apparently, and have your voice aired incessantly during peak hours – you just have to allow for equal discussion on PUBLIC airwaves.
And again, you are not “plenty well informed”. You’re mixing the role of the station owner and the program producer. They have nothing to do with each other.
Also – “buying time” is not generally how it’s done (indeed, Limbaugh’s program is free. Air America had to buy time, of course, because their programming was and is a boat anchor, but that’s an exception).
Anyone who doesn’t get that conservatives are quaking in their boots because this would require radio stations dominated by conservative op-ed/program director/programming boards
Again, you are not “well informed” at all. “Op Ed” has nothing to do with it – and I doubt there’s a single commercial station in the country that has any such position.
And program directors and management are – this is a fact – fundamentally non-political in their approach to programming because – this is important – IT’S A BUSINESS, NOT A POLITICAL VENTURE. (Air America stations were often exceptions – another reason they are dying).
to actually try to be FAIR in how news is covered and analyzed,
Talk shows are about entertainment, not about “news coverage and analysis policy”.
and thus cut down the pillar of UNFAIRNESS they (conservatives) have dominated – is either uninformed, disinformed, or trying to make you one or the other.
And again, your ignorance is positively colossal.
There is nothing “UNFAIR” about the “pillar” because there are ample choices for the consumer.
But this is not, and will never be, about providing diversity of information. It’s about cutting it down, starting on the right.
They don’t want Salem Broadcasting, or Hubbard, or Clear Channel, to have to air real discourse about topics – where each side is represented equally in open and frank reviews of policy…
Bla bla bla. There rest of your comment is paranoid tripe and doesn’t deserve a thoughtful response.
“so which are they, politics, and therefore limited by election law, or entertainment?”
Politics are limited by election law?
these programs are supposedly entertainment – not political advocation anway – so which are they, politics, and therefore limited by election law, or entertainment? If entertainment, no one is getting limited from saying what they want, because, it’s a schtick, a show.
Again, you display your ignorance.
It is all entertainment. It is all a show.
It’s entertainment that uses the news as its subject matter, but it is all entertainment.
Which is one reason liberals fail at it; they never get that concept.
Do you think Precious Miss Peev would explode or implode if he heard about who owns KSTP?
I think the NARN should bring in Bobo the Liberal Clown for equal time. h/she can have a little air horn, and shout “rediculas” over and over in between reciting ” from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. Would that satisfy the free speech Nazis?
If they have a weekly “liberal drinking from the fire hose” segment, I’ll tune in!
(a day late and a dollar short, but that’s what I get for reading blogs at work)
The reason for ‘fairness’ is that advocating for one political position on public airwaves is using a public trust for the benefit of ONE political party over another.
The left has the entire TV spectrum (except for FOX News) completely sewn up. Where’s the criticism for that?
For every KTLK and Rush Limbaugh/Jason Lewis you want to bitch about, I’ll throw MSNBC and Chris Matthews/Keith Olbermann right back in your face.
I think that SITD should institute its own fairness doctrine. Peev will be limited to using the same number of words in his comments as Mitch does in the actual post itself. If that appears unfair, we can change it to “any commenters will only be allowed…” since he is really the only serial violator.
Peev will be limited to using the same number of words in his comments as Mitch does in the actual post itself.
That is brilliantly hilarious.
Which is one reason liberals fail at it; they never get that concept.
Exactly right. One reason Air America failed was that their goal was never “We will make people want to listen to us”.
And a response to peev re his constant carping that the GOP is vicious and squashes all dissent:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jF0fQ3OjKDzcYcaUbRe-HprKocyQD92L2HBO0
Headline: Calif. Dems kick rep out of Capitol for disloyalty
The first lesson of conservatism is that all pol’s are pieces o’ crap. Yes, and I include Reagan in this. Eliminate the tax deduction for credit card interest? That was Reagan. Tax unemployment benefits? That was Reagan, too.