The "Fairness Doctrine"

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

There are several problems with the so called "fairness doctrine", easily illustrated.

I'll use the local talk radio station as an example. I haven't listened as much in the past year or so, the format may have changed.

It starts with 3 hours of LOCAL hosts, Gill and Valentine. Then 3 hours of Liddy, syndicated. Then 3 hours of Ramsey, local but syndicated to other stations. Finally 3 hours of Boortz. So that's 12 hours of prime time air time for talk radio. And when MOST of the audience that pays the bills does most of their listening.

The average listener, if allowed to listen at work, and working the day shift, listens during that period. Then has an hour or so for dinner, and 3 hours of prime time TV. So that's 16 hours, and then bed for 8.

The station, owned by an individual, partnership, or corporation still has 12 hours to fill, usually with Savage and others, that are not as popular. The 12 hours of prime time is where they make their profit. keeping them in business and paying their employees (not just on air employees).

Now comes the "fairness doctrine". To supposedly "balance" 3 hours of Liddy, the station is FORCED to follow Liddy with Franken (or the "left" talk show host of your choice). So for that 3 hours, the listening audience drops, and now the station can't sell prime time advertising, so they lose money. But wait, there's more. The Liddy fan who used to stay tuned for Ramsey tunes out. So Ramsey loses some audience. More money gone. Then Ramsey or Boortz (or Liddy) is bumped from live radio, and the bumped show loses even more. And ONE of the four shows is bumped off of prime time, and loses even more. So now the station loses even more. Finally, the listener gets cheated out of his choice, one of his shows is no longer live, and no longer on during his prime listening time.

So, the station loses money, the show hosts lose money, the advertisers lose money, and the listener loses one of his shows, or more. The only person who MAKES money AND gets what he wants is Franken (or the "left" talk show host of your choice).

Oh, and then to balance another conservative show, the station is eventually forced to add ANOTHER "left" hosted show that doesn't make money. Another 3 hours they lose money and audience, and another 3 hours the listener doesn't get to hear what he tunes in for.


THAT is the "fairness doctrine" in a nut shell. Who is going to PAY for the lost profits? Why, the tax payer, of course. There's only one winner. The "left", who not only gets their "message" out that no one really wants to hear (because if people WANTED to hear it, they'd tune in and make it profitable), but their "hosts" get paid when they can't get a job in radio otherwise (note that "Air America" went bankrupt almost immediately due to a lack of listeners, despite massive promotion).

[ZetaNine]

there was a time when the fairness doctrine was..........fair.  it initially grew out of a concern that there were a large number of applicants for radio stations......but only a very limited number of available frequencies.  the fact that radio was...at that time.....the only electric media source...was a cause for concern as to how news and information would be delivered to the masses.  with the advent of cable, satellite, and now the internet........the argument can no longer be made that news or opinion sources are fully monopolized by any one particular view.

the only similar legislation that resembles this were the old rules that applied to broadcasters owning both radio and tv or print media in the same market (town).......and if I recall.......the duopoly rules were changed in the early 90's..permitting companies to control all forms of media...and even monopolize cities.  In those days I represented many air personalities and I can recall how companies were coming in and buying up tv and radio stations......firing local air personalties and using network air personalites......as well as cleaning house with radio sales teams...while keeping a select few in once centralized office who sold air time for the radio and tv stations the company had acquired. cox and clear channel come to mind.

[midnight Target]

Not true Captain.

Indeed, when it was in place, citizen groups used the Fairness Doctrine as a tool to expand speech and debate. For instance, it prevented stations from allowing only one side to be heard on ballot measures. Over the years, it had been supported by grassroots groups across the political spectrum, including the ACLU, National Rifle Association and the right-wing Accuracy In Media.

Typically, when an individual or citizens group complained to a station about imbalance, the station would set aside time for an on-air response for the omitted perspective: “Reasonable opportunity for presentation of opposing points of view,” was the relevant phrase. If a station disagreed with the complaint, feeling that an adequate range of views had already been presented, the decision would be appealed to the FCC for a judgment.

According to Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of MAP, scheduling response time was based on time of day, frequency and duration of the original perspective. “If one view received a lot of coverage in primetime,” Schwartzman told Extra!, “then at least some response time would have to be in primetime. Likewise if one side received many short spots or really long spots.” But the remedy did not amount to equal time; the ratio of airtime between the original perspective and the response “could be as much as five to one,” said Schwartzman.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm

[midnight Target]

there was a time when the fairness doctrine was..........fair.  it initially grew out of a concern that there were a large number of applicants for radio stations......but only a very limited number of available frequencies.  the fact that radio was...at that time.....the only electric media source...was a cause for concern as to how news and information would be delivered to the masses.  with the advent of cable, satellite, and now the internet........the argument can no longer be made that news or opinion sources are fully monopolized by any one particular view.

There are still a limited number of available frequencies for broadcast radio and TV.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Yeah, it IS true. AT LEAST 3 of those 12 hours WILL be taken. Or do you REALLY expect us to believe that a power hungry bureaucracy trying to further its agenda will be satisfied with less? They NEVER get enough. Never enough taxes, never enough entitlements, never enough government. Their main belief is that anything the private sector can do they can take control of and do better. Or at least better serve their own interests. Sorry, not buying it. No thanks.

[ZetaNine]

There are still a limited number of available frequencies for broadcast radio and TV.

understood.......but those are no longer the only media choices.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

There are still a limited number of available frequencies for broadcast radio and TV.

And the left leaning "mainstream media" controls the news portion of the TV side already, with a few rare exceptions, such as the late Mr. Russert. And the ONLY thing keeping them off of the radio is NO ONE WANTS to listen.

[midnight Target]

understood.......but those are no longer the only media choices.

But those are the only ones affected by the Fairness Doctrine.

[ZetaNine]

But those are the only ones affected by the Fairness Doctrine.

and that's what makes it an idea whos time has come and gone.  we no longer need to rely just on tv and radio.

[AKIron]

Maybe you don't know this, but the Fairness Doctrine applies only to the necessarily limited number of frequencies available on the public airwaves. It has NOTHING to do with print, or cable or internet because those offer almost unlimited opportunities for access.

There are more than enough frequencies available to provide whatever people want to listen to. You could add a million more channels to our airwaves and none of them could pay for a liberal biased venue. This is an attempt at government sponsored censorship, plain and simple.

[midnight Target]

Those media choices that are not limited by physics should never be regulated. Those that are necessarily limited by physics MUST be regulated in the public's interest. There is regulation now. If anyone with enough money could come along and start broadcasting there would be chaos. So the government grants licenses to people or corporations allowing them a slice of the public airwaves. If we regulate for the expediency of the corporations to allow them the ability to have unobstructed access to a frequency, we can and should also regulate for the expediency of the people so they can have access to a more complete set of information.

It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
— U.S. Supreme Court, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Regulation is NOT the cure for every ill, nor every imagined ill. Government regulation has created nearly as many problems as it has ever hoped to solve. The belief that damned near everything MUST be regulated down to minute detail is one of the biggest problems in this country.

The supposed need for the "fairness doctrine" is based on the assumption that the media content is based on what the media wants to sell as opposed to what the audience wants to buy. That assumption is false.

Excessively regulated by the fairness doctrine, the media will become just another poorly run burden on the tax payers, forced upon them by a government out of touch with their wants and needs, and failing to serve them in any manner they will use. And there is no doubt that the regulation WILL be excessive. The government and its associated bureaucracies rarely fail to over regulate anything nearly to death, once they're given a serious amount of control.

[AKIron]

If the socialists win this one it may well backfire on them. If people find themselves bored enough to actually listen to those with a distorted perspective on reality they may just realize the difference in fundamental goals and get angry enough to act against them.

[ZetaNine]

Those media choices that are not limited by physics should never be regulated. Those that are necessarily limited by physics MUST be regulated in the public's interest. There is regulation now. If anyone with enough money could come along and start broadcasting there would be chaos. So the government grants licenses to people or corporations allowing them a slice of the public airwaves. If we regulate for the expediency of the corporations to allow them the ability to have unobstructed access to a frequency, we can and should also regulate for the expediency of the people so they can have access to a more complete set of information.

to an extent you're right......but only as far as the fcc licensing station to act as a "public trustee"...and that has more to do with news and disasters than it does regulating programming content.

[midnight Target]

to an extent you're right......but only as far as the fcc licensing station to act as a "public trustee"...and that has more to do with news and disasters than it does regulating programming content.

Mostly true. I think there may be instances where "entertainment" programming may infringe on the doctrine, but the examples would be few. For example, I would expect a response to an airing of Farenheit 911.